Welcome Wagon

Related to the previous post, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has long talked about a Welcome Wagon project to introduce blue state refugees to red state values.  Too often, blue staters leave the blue state that has become unlivable and relocate to a red state.  However, once established in the red state, they continue to vote for blue state policies.  If sufficient blue staters migrate to the state, it starts to resemble the state they left.  The goal is to explain the cause and effect of their voting patterns.

Tim Pool, who describes himself as a milquetoast fence sitter who leans left, recently moved to a more conservative state.  He had previously lived in such places as the Philadelphia metro area, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.  Though he rarely votes, he announced that he would not try to impose his values in his newly adopted state.  It was working well enough before he arrived.  This is exactly the mindset sought by the Welcome Wagon.

Voting with Your Feet

Many years ago, some pundit was saying great things about Cuba, espousing the healthcare and high literacy rate.  The opposing pundit replied that people vote with their feet (i.e., they leave or enter a country) and Cuba had net negative migration.  People were choosing to leave.  Though I cannot recall who said it, this idea has stuck with me ever since.  Often, when someone starts bashing America as a bad country, I ask why everyone wants to migrate here rather than all those superior countries?  A change in topic is the typical result.

With that in mind, there was a link on Instapundit to a page showing tax burdens by state.  The most burdensome states are New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, and California.  The states with the lowest tax burden were Alaska, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Michigan.  Given that, where are people moving?  Let's take a look at U-Haul.

The highest inflow is to Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Arizona.  The highest outflow comes from Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and California.  There are a couple of matches between the U-Haul chart and the tax burdens, but not much.  Let's see what northAmerican Moving Services moving shows.  Alaska and Hawaii are listed as undefined so there are only 48 states to consider.

Tennessee and Florida are again ranked in the top five for destinations while New Jersey, Illinois, and California are listed for departures.  The inflow states tend to have lower taxes than outflow states.  However, Texas and Michigan have about the same tax burden, just levied in different ways (Texas has no state income tax while Michigan does).  The departure states are generally colder than the destination states, but California, Ohio, and Idaho throw a wrench in that theory.

Let's go back and get the tax burden ratings for the states that appear in the two charts.  What does that look like?

Again, it is pretty clear that the inflow states have the lower tax burden but Michigan is an outflow state with a low tax burden.  Odd.  Idaho is an inflow state with an above median tax burden.  What gives?  Let's combine the three charts and sort:

I pasted them all together and then sorted by the total of Tax Burden + northAmerican Ranking + U-Haul Ranking.  I should have gone back to the various charts and filled in the missing numbers, but I've already spent enough time on this.  After a little more investigation, there was a pattern.

There is a clear migration away from Democrat-controlled states toward Republican-controlled states.  People are voting with their feet.

Disband the FBI

Of the four men on trial for plotting to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, two were found not guilty on all counts.  The remaining two resulted in a hung jury.  Looking back, it does seem unusual that a major bust by the FBI should happen the month before the presidential election and that it should involve a Democratic governor in an important battleground state.  In the wake of the arrests and the massive reporting that followed, Whitmer blamed Trump and Trump blamed Whitmer for locking down the state.  Soon after, Trump lost Michigan and the election.

After the election, FBI shenanigans were exposed.  A dozen FBI agents and/or informants were involved in the plot, 'observing' every facet of the growing plot.  Those arrested claimed that much of the push toward the plot came from the FBI informants and agents.  That two of the men were found not guilty leads one to think that probably was the case.  I would generally dismiss such conspiracy theories about the FBI, but two of the men charged were found not guilty.  12 jurors voted unanimously against the government case.  Sure, I could see a hung jury with one hold out juror, but a unanimous vote against seems unthinkable.  What evidence did the jurors see that convinced them there was nothing there?  When one considers the role of the FBI in the Russian Collusion Hoax, it becomes all that more believable that agents could perpetrate something like this.

I used to think very highly of the FBI.  As a kid, I used to watch the TV series with Efrem Zimbalist Jr.  I was a big fan of the X-Files, which took the FBI to strange places.  Fringe did much the same.  Now, the FBI always seems to be political.  I'm all for infiltrating violent or would-be violent groups, but where are the big arrests of BLM and Antifa?  Director Comey sent memos to someone outside of government in order to trigger a special counsel investigation against Trump.  His successor, Andrew McCabe was fired for leaking information to the media.  Agent Peter Strzok was fired as well.  FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was fired for falsifying a FISA document to spy on a Trump campaign advisor.  All these men were deeply involved in the Russian Collusion story, which has since been shown to be false.  The FBI is no longer an unbiased law enforcement agency.  As many black Americans don't believe the testimony of any police officer, I am more and more inclined to doubt any testimony from the FBI, especially if the case has political implications.

Upload, Season 2

The first season ended with Nathan (Robbie Amell) having a visit from his cloying girlfriend, Ingrid (Allegra Edwards).  She revealed that she had uploaded for him.  She had committed suicide to join him in the digital afterlife.  Now feeling massively guilty and beholden to her, he tries to make a go of it while wondering what happened to Nora (Andy Allo).  He had used his computer skills to rescue her from an assassin in the real world, but now he couldn't contact her.  Was she okay?  Indeed, Nora is fine though she has fled the city and now lives a technology-free existence with a cult of neo-Luddites called Luds.  In her absence, a new employee, Tinsley, uses Nora's avatar, much to Nathan's consternation.  The Luds are very interested in using Nora's skills and connections to oppose the eternal life granted to some while denied to the majority.

Only 7 episodes for the season, but overall good entertainment.  There is a strange fascination with going digital by some people.  Nathan's program, a free version for uploading, is online but controlled by unscrupulous people.  Nathan's mother plans to upload as a surprise to her son.  What?  You are healthy and not that old but you're going to commit suicide to have a virtual life?  What kind of nuttiness is that?  The show does reverse itself on technology from last season; it turns out that there is a backup that can be restored.  Thus, downloading into a new body and then getting run over by a truck will not result in permanent death.  Of course, that is going to quickly result in multiple versions of the same person.  More on that next season.

Good popcorn fun.

1356

Thomas of Hookton is an English archer during the 100 Year War between England and France.  He leads a band of archers and men-at-arms called the Hellequin.  Some years ago, he had gone on a quest for the Holy Grail and recovered it (The Grail Trilogy is excellent).  Now, his liege lord, the Earl of Northampton, has requested he find La Malice, the sword that Peter drew to protect Jesus.  Could it still exist?  Many believed it did and that it was hidden in France.  Thomas is not alone in his quest for the holy sword.  Cardinal Bessieres, a man who hopes to be Pope, believes the blade will assure his rise.  His minion, Father Marchant, gladly kills in order to track the path of the sword.  While Thomas pursues clues to the sword's whereabouts, Edward, the Black Prince, is sourging the south of France while King John II of France avoids confrontation.  The slaughter a French army at Crecy (1346) by the fearsome longbows is still a fresh memory.  In the end, Thomas finds himself joining the Black Prince near Poitiers, where King John II has marshalled an immense army and trapped the English on a hill.  It looks hopeless and Edward is inclined to accept horrendous terms for surrender.  Such talk only gives King John more confidence and he orders an attack!  Thus began the Battle of Poitiers.

The conclusion feels a bit rushed.  There are some character deaths that come like footnotes rather than tragic losses or well-deserved comeuppance.  Some characters who were prominent in the beginning, notably Brother Michael, have vanished by the end.  As Brother Michael fades, in walks Keane, an Irish seminary student, who has the same desire to be a man-at-arms as Michael.  Soon, Keane eclipsed Michael.  In fact, Keane became the Harper to Thomas of Hookton's Sharpe.  (Cornwell's most famous character is English officer Richard Sharpe and his constant sidekick was Irish Sergeant Patrick Harper).  Of course, I liked Keane far more than I liked Michael.  I suppose Michael wrote himself out while Keane was just irresistible.

A terrific tale that sees action across southern France.  Several notable historic characters play large roles and others have cameos.  There is Edward the Black Prince who seems a charming rogue and brilliant warrior, King John II of France and his sons Prince Charles and Prince Philippe, Pope Innocent VI, and even Pope Gregory XI in his days as a student at Montpelier.  There is lots of action, loads of flavor of the time period, and a wonderful amount of actual history.  Bernard Cornwell is one of the greatest historical fiction writers, sure to go down with the likes of C. S. Forester and Arthur Conan Doyle.

Highly recommended.

Sedecim et Septemdecim Delenda Est!

Here is an article singing my song!  I've made this argument several times over the years, mostly for the 17th Amendment, but I whole-heartedly agree with repealing the 16th as well.  The Federal government is supposed to be a small, LIMITED government.  The states are STATES, not provinces.  It is a FEDERAL government, not a CENTRAL government.  Though I have long viewed the centralizing of power in Washington DC as a predictable result of changing the way senators are chosen, I did not tie the growth of the bureaucratic state to that amendment.  However, Kozlovich and Lehr make a good case for it.  With states unable to stem government overreach without their Senate veto, the growth of legislation and outsourcing the details to alphabet agencies does make sense.  Even so, the Constitution clearly states that 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.'  That is clearly not the EPA, the FDA, the EEOC, or any of the other myriad agencies.  A rule that imposes penalties must be passed by members of Congress, not outsourced to unelected bureaucrats.  The Supreme Court got rolled by FDR's threat to pack the court and the floodgates were opened for more and more rules and regulations to flood from the unelected and largely unaccountable administrative state.

The 16th and 17th Amendments must be repealed!  In the aftermath, the central government will dwindle in size and power, and the states will regain some independence from an overbearing Washington DC.  As noted in a previous posting, Obamacare was opposed by 26 states and therefore could not have passed if the states still had control of the Senate as intended.  Much as I like the idea, it is a hard sell.  No path for accomplishing these feats is outlined.

Buy an Electric Car to Save Money on Gas

"A typical driver will save about $80 a month from not having to pay gas at the pump"

President Joe Biden

That is a good point.  One can save on gas by just not having to buy gas.  However, is it cheaper to buy an electric car?  If you have a working car, getting a new car is automatically much more expensive.  That car payment will be much more than $80 a month.  If you have a working car, don't try to save money by buying an electric car.  I don't think the president was suggesting that you take on a new car payment to save on gas.  However, what if you are in the market for a new car and have a choice between electric or gas?  In that case, the president is encouraging the purchase of an electric vehicle rather than a gas one.  Will that save money?  Let's run some numbers.

Step One: What electric vehicles are available and how much do they cost?  One of my first hits for that was this webpage.

The least expensive car on the list was the Nissan Leaf for $27,400.  It has a base range of 149 miles per charge.  The Tesla Model 3 is listed at $40,690 with a base range of 267 miles.  In both cases, I chose the least expensive model (i.e., no extended range with battery upgrade, etc.).

Step Two: What gas cars are available and how much do they cost?  I went looking for inexpensive cars (we're trying to save money, after all) and found this webpage.

The least expensive car was the Chevrolet Spark for $14,595.  It has a 9 gallon tank and gets 33 mpg, giving it a range of 297 miles.  The most expensive car on this list was the Nissan Sentra at $20,635.  It also gets 33 mpg but has a 12.4 gallon tank, giving it a range of 409 miles.

Step Three.  What is the car payment?  Using myself as the buyer, I found that I could get an interest rate in the range of 2.25% to 3.24%.  Let's split the difference and use 2.75%.  Also, I will go for a 5 year loan.  Let's run the numbers:

Make Model - Monthly Payment

Chevy Spark - $260.63

Nissan Sentra - $368.50

Nissan Leaf - $489.30

Tesla Model 3 - $726.63

The most expensive of the gas cars is over $120 cheaper per month than the most inexpensive electric car.  Both of the gas cars can go further on a tank of gas than either of the electric cars will go on a charge.  Though I fully expect electric cars to eventually overtake gas cars, that time has not yet come.  If you need to buy a new car, the electric will not save you money.  Of course, this calculation might be different in California, where the gas price is dramatically higher.