Actually, it's hard to count how many ways this is a stupid idea. But Jazz Shaw at Hot Air and Bob Owens at PJ Media itemize just some of the problems with gun microstamping.
Included in the litany of idiocy:
This is what happens when central economic planners get too much power.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - a part of the President's team - publishes the percentage of GDP that the federal government takes in each fiscal year. It's helpful to understand what actually happened, rather than an estimate of might happen in the future, or a prediction of how this policy or that policy will affect things. The chart below is based on the OMB's publicly published numbers showing tax receipts since 1945.
What does history tell us? It tells us that, regardless of tax rates, the federal government takes never takes in more than 21% of GDP. This is nearly 70 years of consistent behavior. It is a modern era that includes years of war and of peace. It includes recessions, recoveries, housing booms, oil crises and even the collapse of the gold standard. It is a period of dramatic technological and economic change. In these years, marginal tax rates were as high as 90%. In some of these years, taxes on high incomes and successful investments were exceptionally high; in others they were exceptionally low.
Through it all, tax receipts never went above 21% of GDP. That tells me that our federal government must not spend more than 21% of GDP. We must prioritize that spending so that we fund that which is most important. And we will likely disagree amongst ourselves on those priorities. But the fundamental fact is that we will never tax ourselves back to a balanced budget. The only way is to recognize that federal spending has an indisputable limit.
Source of tax receipt data: The Office of Management and Budget
... If the Solyndra case came walking into a competent prosecutor’s office, the theory of the investigation would be fraud. We have the loss of over half a billion dollars in public money (in the form of government credits), which was pledged to back a company that had a hopelessly flawed business model and that was gushing losses with no realistic prospect of a turn-around. We have grossly misleading rosy-scenario pronouncements by key players (including President Obama and Vice President Biden) at a time when Solyndra backers were gearing up an initial public offering of stock — and when Solyndra’s independent auditors had issued a dire warning that it was doubtful the company could continue as a going concern. In addition, we have executive-branch officials renegotiating the loan arrangement so that corporate insiders, including Obama administration cronies, would be given priority over taxpayers in the liquidation of assets when the company inevitably went belly-up — a novation that appears to be as illegal as it is inexplicable.
On the surface, it appeared to be just a well-connected investor making good use of his network to secure a nice contract. But in fact, we have a well-connected investor making good use of his network to secure a federally subsidized loan that the firm could not have qualified for on its merits.
I don't understand how even conscientious liberals can accept this state of affairs. If they truly despise "crony capitalism," then surely they despise this! Don't they?
Mr. McCarthy's commentary is worth reading. You'll find it here: The Solyndra Non-Investigation
"The payroll tax cut that, to me, is not a bad idea. It's always good to let people keep more of their own money," Ryan said. "But it's no substitute for fundamental tax reform--for certainty. It's temporary stuff.
"See, what we've learned already from the Keynesian playbook is demand side spending stimulus, temporary tax rebates, which were tried in the Bush administration and didn't work, and this administration--all this stimulus hasn't worked."
This has nothing to do with which party has the majority in Congress, or whether it's a conservative or a liberal in the White House. The bottom line is that temporary fiscal measures never work. The Bush administration tried them. And the Obama administration has tried them. They don't work. Stop doing it!
They might have worked when information moved slowly. But not any more. Decision makers in business look at all of the available information before making a choice. And if that choice involves hiring another employee, their planning horizon is at least three years. An ethical business owner ... and most are highly ethical ... will not make the implied promise of a livelihood to a new employee unless he is confident that he will still be part of the company three years from now. Otherwise, it's better to simply hire a contractor.
How is this misleading?
The nominal amount of debt racked up by Bush 43 is $6.1 Trillion.
The nominal amount of debt racked up by Obama is $2.4 Trillion ... or just shy of 40% of the total Bush 43 presidency.
But remember, Obama is only 30 months into his presidency, meaning that his policies are increasing the debt at a rate $80,000,000,000 per month!. If this were to continue for two terms (perish the thought), the total additional debt created in the same period as Bush 43's presidency would equal nearly $8 trillion, or about 33% more. And this does not even account for Obamacare, which hasn't even begun adding to our debt.
Yes, Bush 43 added $6.1 trillion to the public debt. Yes, this was not a success. Obama's supporters have no explanation for why doing more of a bad idea is somehow a good thing.
With these facts in mind, look at the chart published by the House Armed Services Committee (please click to enlarge):
Remember that food travels by ships that need protection from piracy. The seas are still just as large as they were 20 years ago, and we have only half the ships we did when Bill Clinton was president. We cannot support ground troops without fighter squadrons and strategic bombers.
And the world is not safer than it was in 1990 ... it is far more dangerous.
A weakened America means an ever more dangerous world.
It has been over a full year since the stimulus became law, and it is, in fact, highly logical that our economy is worse than before the stimulus. Unemployment is higher - as is the unemployment rate - because business owners have less money to hire new workers, expand their business or to purchase additional goods and services. They would have more money, except that it's been taken from them and given to folks that are not in a position to ... hire new workers, expand a business or purchase additional goods and services.
Posted with Blogsy