Thursday, February 27, 2014

Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, In Her Own Words

A Plan for Peace*


*Summary of address before the New History Society, January 17th, 1932. New York City.

FIRST, put into action President Wilson's fourteen points, upon which terms Germany and Austria surrendered to the Allies in 1918.

Second, have Congress set up a special department for the study of population problems and appoint a Parliament of Population, the directors representing the various branches of science this body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.

The main objects of the Population Congress would be ...

a.) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population

b.) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand

c.) to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924

d.) to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring

e.) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feeble-minded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization

f.) to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization

g.) to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives

The first step would thus be to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

The second step would be to take an inventory of the secondary group such as illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, dope-fiends, classify them in special departments under government medical protection, and segregate them on farms and open spaces as long as necessary for the strengthening and development of moral conduct.

Having corralled this enormous part of our population and placed it on a basis of health instead of punishment, it is safe to say that fifteen or twenty millions of our population would then be organized into soldiers of defense--defending the unborn against their own disabilities.

The third step would be to give special attention to the mothers' health, to see that women who are suffering from tuberculosis, heart or kidney disease, toxic goiter, gonorrhea, or any disease where the condition of pregnancy disturbs their health are placed under public health nurses to instruct them in practical, scientific methods of contraception in order to safeguard their lives-thus reducing maternal mortality.

The above steps may seem to place emphasis on a health program instead of on tariffs, moratoriums and debts, but I believe that national health is the first essential factor in any program for universal peace.

With the future citizen safeguarded from hereditary taints, with five million mental and moral degenerates segregated, with ten million women and ten million children receiving adequate care, we could then turn our attention to the basic needs for international peace.

There would then be a definite effort to make population increase slowly and at a specified rate, in order to accommodate and adjust increasing numbers to the best social and economic system.

In the meantime we should organize and join an International League of Low Birth Rate Nations to secure and maintain World Peace.


Birth Control Review, April 1932. Pages 107, 108 (PDF pages 11, 12)

History of Eugenics

Friday, February 21, 2014

Seven of the Ten Richest U.S. Counties Seemingly Depend of the Federal Government

According to recent Census Bureau data, seven of the ten richest counties in the United States seemingly depend on the tax- and debt-funded federal government. "Richest" is based on the county's median household income.

  1. Falls Church City, VA ($121,250)
  2. Loudoun County, VA ($118,934)
  3. Los Alamos County, NM ($112,115)
  4. Howard County, MD ($108,234)
  5. Fairfax County, VA ($106,690)
  6. Hunterdon County, NJ ($103,301)
  7. Arlington County, VA ($99,255)
  8. Douglas County, CO ($98,426)
  9. Stafford County, VA ($95,927)
  10. Somerset County, NJ ($95,574)

Six of the top 10 counties surrounds the nation's capital in Washington, D.C., home to a variety of federal agencies, departments, and bedroom communities for government workers.  The less obvious member of the list is Los Alamos County in New Mexico, home to the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

When you think of rich counties, which come to mind?  Parts of Silicon Valley are quite affluent, yet Santa Clara County, CA is number 17 on the list.  Marin County, CA is number 19.

You can download the Census Bureau's data spreadsheet here.  The spreadsheet also shows the poorest U.S. counties based on median household income.

U.S. Jobs Recovered after the 2008 Recession

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Is the 2013 California Attack on PG&E and AT&T Related to Similar 2009 AT&T Incident?

In April 2013, there was a seemingly orchestrated attack on a PG&E electrical transmission facility and on the AT&T telecommunications network.  The incident was scarcely reported at the time, likely because of the Boston Marathon Bombing that happened the day before. The incident was also characterized as "vandalism" but the facts suggest something a bit more ominous.  Nearly a year later, the incident is rightfully attracting some new media attention (WSJ, TheBlaze).

During the 2013, parties unknown cut telecommunications cables in South San Jose, CA. Fiber optic and other cables were cut in two locations near Pacific Gas & Electric's (PG&E) Metcalf power substation. Later, multiple gunmen opened fire at the PG&E substation damaging 17 electrical transformers in an apparent effort to knock out power.  The telecommunications outage cut phone, cell phone, internet, and 911 service to thousands of people and businesses.

Some argue that the 2013 attack was a dry-run for a future, larger attack. Upon hearing the details, I've wondered if the April 2013 incident is related to a similar incident that happened four years earlier in nearly the same location.

In April 2009, parties unknown cut ten fiber optic cables in at least three different locations. Six of the cables were cut within three miles of the site of the 2013 incidents, straight up Old Monterey Road (Old Monterey Highway). In the 2009 incident, cables were also cut 33 miles away, but within easy access by car from the first site via Highway 101. At the time, some suspected members of the Communication Workers of American (CWA) union, who were in a labor dispute with AT&T. Those who cut the cables supposedly knew where to find the cables and how to cause the most damage.

Could the two incidents be related? It is only a theory on my part at the moment but the location and modus operandi seem similar enough to warrant more investigation.


2013 Incident

Wall Street Journal: Assault on California Power Station Raises Alarm on Potential for Terrorism

The Blaze: Chilling: Why An Underreported, ‘Significant Incident of Domestic Terrorism’ Might Not Be a Failed Attack at All

CBS News Bay Area: Vandalism At San Jose PG&E Substation Called ‘Sabotage’

NBC News Bay Area: AT&T Offers $250,000 Reward for Fiber Vandalism

Santa Cruz Sentinel: Internet, cellphone customers cut off by outage: Fiber cut in Santa Clara County a challenge to repair

2009 Incident

San Francisco Chronicle: Sabotage attacks knock out phone service

San Jose Mercury News: San Jose police: Sabotage caused phone outage in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz counties

Sunday, February 9, 2014

The "Evil" Koch Brothers Distort American Democracy--Or Something

Many a Progressive focus their wrath on the "evil" Koch Brothers for the money they give to non-Progressive politicis. Admittedly, the Koch's give nearly exclusively to right-wing or libertarian causes. But does all that money greatly tilt the balance of American democracy? According to the Center for Responsive Politics (, Koch Industries is the 59th largest spender in federal elections. Who are the top 25 and to which party due they primarily give? Check it out for yourself.

Downloadable source data in spreadsheet form, including calculations to create the above chart.

See Also ...

The Big Spenders Behind the Scenes

Resources for Tracking Campaign Spending

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

What Does the CBO Report REALLY Say About How ObamaCare Affects Jobs?

SUMMARY #1: If the Government takes from Peter to pay for Paul's health insurance, Paul has less or no incentive to work to pay for his own insurance.

SUMMARY #2: ObamaCare means more able-bodied people in the wagon and fewer workers to actually pull the wagon.

The Obama Administration and their allies are attempting to blunt the harsh reality escaping from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2014 (February 2014).  The report includes Appendix C, titled "Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates," beginning on page 117 (PDF page 123).  I encourage you to download and read the CBO's words for yourself.

Here are a few of my favorite snippets, free from the Administration's bogus claim that ObamaCare (a.k.a., the Affordable Care Act or the ACA) "liberates" people from jobs that they supposedly held only because it provided health insurance benefits.  In fact, ObamaCare reduces the size of the available workforce and inflicts disincentives to productive work.
"How Much Will the ACA Reduce Employment in the Longer Term?
The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probably occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full effect and overall economic output nears its maximum sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked ... almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive."
Of course, by complete and accidental coincidence, the largest impact happens after 2016, which just happens to be a Presidential election year.
"The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024."
How big a loss is 2 MILLION full-time-equivalent workers? The entire U.S. job market lost 8.7 million full-time jobs after the 2008 recession caused by the global financial crisis. Those 2 million full-time-equivalent workers equates to about 23% (one-fifth to one-fourth) of all the jobs lost during the last recession.  Additionally, 2 million jobs represents 74% of the number lost in the 2001 recession after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  The number is NOT inconsequential.

But there is an important distinction. According tot he CBO report, the JOBS won't disappear but the WORKERS will.  In other words, they'll be more able-bodied people in the wagon and fewer able-bodied workers to pull the wagon.

"The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours ...."
As widely reported, employers have cut work hours to avoid some of ObamaCare's poor policy mandates.  The White House, who once claimed that ObamaCare has no effect on the labor market, now also claims that these lost hours are a good thing because it "liberates" people from jobs they held only to receive health benefits.  Never mind that some of those "liberated" receive big, taxpayer-funded subsidies paid by "un-liberated" (i.e., enslaved) people still in the work force.
"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)."
Hmm. A reduction in labor force participation, huh? Do you mean like a further reduction in the lowest participation rate in the civilian job since 1978?

Or, does the CBO mean a further reduction in the jobs-to-population ratio, which appears to be stuck at its lowest level in a generation?

Ask also, WHY would "workers choose to supply" less labor? Is it because they don't feel like working?  Did they suddenly win the lottery?  Did they find a rich sugar-momma cougar and they're now entertained as a cabana boy and paid in "free" margaritas? No, it's because SOMEBODY ELSE is paying for their health insurance via ObamaCare's taxpayer-funded subsidies.  ObamaCare's subsidies are poorly designed and seemingly designed to punish middle-class families here in California.  Earn just $1 more a year and your health insurance costs jump by over $8,000 and your after-insurance take-home income drops by $16,000.  This is NOT sane policy.

The CBO report openly admits this later, on pages 118-119 (PDF pages 124-125).
"In CBO's view, the ACA's effects on labor supply will stem mainly from the following provisions, roughly in order of importance:
  • The subsidies for health insurance purchased through exchanges;
  • The expansion of eligibility for Medicaid;
  • The penalties on employers that decline to offer insurance; and
  • The new taxes imposed on labor income.
"Some of those provisions will reduce the amount of labor supplied by some workers; other provisions will increase the amount of labor supplied by other workers. Several provisions also will combine to affect retirement decisions."
WHY do taxpayer-provided subsidies matter? Here, let the CBO elaborate:
"For some people, the availability of exchange subsidies under the ACA will reduce incentives to work both through a substitution effect and through an income effect. The former arises because subsidies decline with rising income (and increase as income falls), thus making work less attractive. As a result, some people will choose not to work or will work less—thus substituting other activities for work. The income effect arises because subsidies increase available resources—similar to giving people greater income—thereby allowing some people to maintain the same standard of living while working less."
In other words, ObamaCare will take money from those in the workforce by necessity and give it to others so that they no longer need to work.  Again, this is NOT sane policy.

Democrats, of course, focus on another portion of the CBO report, which highlights ObamaCare's "stimulative" effects.  Unfortunately, these "stimulative" effects were debunked in Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy" written back in 1850.

"... the ACA’s subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate demand for health care services and allow low-income households to redirect some of the funds that they would have spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and services—thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees during that period."
Why are these "stimulative" effects fallacy? Prior to ObamaCare, workers provided value or created wealth in return for income that paid for all or a portion of their health insurance.  Now, thanks to ObamaCare, most if not all of the insurance is paid by subsidies.  Where does the money for the subsidies come from? It comes from OTHER workers who provide value or create wealth in return for income.  Thanks to ObamaCare, these OTHER workers are now deprived of funds to pay for their own healthcare or to purchase their own "other goods."  ObamaCare is NOT real economic stimulation. It's simple income redistribution in another guise.

See also ...

The CBO wrote that ObamaCare  subsidies "reduce incentives to work" by "making work less attractive. As a result, some people will choose not to work or will work less—thus substituting other activities for work."  While the following video clip is for California's Food Stamp program, the effects are the same. Some completely able-bodied individuals will choose to live off the work of others courtesy to the government's redistributionist policies. These individuals are applying rational thought to the government's irrational policies.