Politically Homeless Libertarians

Romney Wins Iowa

2011-12-29T03:55:00.003-05:00

If I’m wrong it won’t be as embarrassing as “Dewey Defeats Truman”, but then this ain’t exactly the Chicago Tribune.

This bizarre Republican Primary season and its flavor of the week madness have to come to an end and it just may be next week in Iowa.

I’m no fan of Romney; in fact, I’ve disliked him for quite a while. I also don’t like Bachman, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum (I REALLY don’t like Santorum) more on that later. Newt, I kinda like, except for the mischievous grin and the lunar mining idea. But at least he thinks outside the box and apparently even the planet. But back to Romney, he’s a Democratic (Dems don't like their political opponents to use Democrat, so I'm trying to be respectfully consistent), ok maybe not a registered Democratic but he was Governor of Mass for crying out loud. They don’t elect Republicans, Senator Brown being a rare exception and probably a one termer. But my big beef with Romney are his 5 sons. Not one even considered going into the military. When asked about their non service he said they serve by helping him get elected. Nice.

Rick Santorum; this guy actually believes that “Pursuit of Happiness” in the Declaration of Independence meant obeying God and doing God’s work. This is outrageous, showing a total misunderstanding of our founding documents and brings into stark relief what a religious nut Santorum is. He is dangerous and should be kept as far away from the Presidency as possible.

Ron Paul. I’m a small and large L libertarian and the small L libertarian likes Mr. Paul except for this little race problem he seems to have. He’s been a good, consistent libertarian except that now we all have to deal with being associated with a possible racist. Great. Iowans will now rethink using Ron Paul to send their message of dissatisfaction with the field. They want to send a message but not one that makes them look bad. BTW, Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico recently quit the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party….so I now know for whom I’ll be voting for President.

So why is Romney going to come from behind and win Iowa? Because the Republican base is going to come to the realization that a long drawn out primary is not in their best interest and will only provide fuel for the campaigner-in-chief Barack Obama. Mr. Romney, as much as I hate to say it, is without doubt the one with the best chance to beat Mr. Obama. I think a campaign between Newt and Barack would be a lot more entertaining but politics isn’t a reality show, OK, it actually is a reality show and it's the best reality show on TV but that’s beside the point. If the Republicans don’t get behind Mitch soon they risk re-electing Mr. Obama.

Warren Buffett on tax rates and the benefits of a monetary printing press

2011-08-21T12:56:00.000-04:00

Mr. Buffett on Charlie Rose recently said that the U.S. government credit rating should remain at AAA. His justification for that is we can continue to print money unlike the EU countries (Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal) currently suffering a significant sovereign debt crisis. He said those countries wished they had their printing press, implying that if they did their debt problems would disappear.

While Mr. Buffett is a strong capitalist it is apparent that he, like most is a believer in Keynesian Economics and as his recent Op Ed in the NY Times indicates a supporter of progressive taxation...in fact, it's not progressive enough for him. He wants to increases the marginal rates on incomes above $1M and even futher for incomes above $10M.

Jack LeMenager in a letter to the editor of the NY Times wrote, " The Internal Revenue Service’s own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 billion, which would barely make a dent in the nation’s multitrillion-dollar annual budget." This would not come close to eliminating the deficit for a single year. While Mr. Buffett has not suggested any specific tax rates, any increase in marginal tax rates on small businesses will have an impact on job creation.

John F. Kennedy found high marginal tax rates to be bad for the economy. If it was bad for the economy in the 1960's it's bad for the economy now.

Rebuttal: “What our Declaration Really Said”, E. J. Dionne, Jr. July 4, 2011

2011-07-16T10:33:00.000-04:00

It is amazing the depth of intellectual dishonesty in which the Left will engage to misinform the American public in an attempt to promote their agenda; the growth of government via the decimation of the Constitution’s concept of enumerated powers.

Mr. Dionne describes the Tea Party movement as being anti-tax, and while this is not inaccurate, it is misleading. The Tea Party is more about concern for the size of government. It is not a misplaced notion as everyone, even the Left, knows that our debt problems are due to the size of government and specifically the expansive (Progressive inspired and implemented) entitlement programs. Although even the Tea Party, when polled, are found to be hypocritical on this latter point as a majority of THEM are opposed to reforms to social security and Medicare. That they hold these views this is testimony to the success of the Progressives indoctrination over the last century or so.

But my problem with this piece is Mr. Dionne’s attempt to interpret The Declaration of Independence as a document about collective rights instead of individual rights. He states, “The very first item on their list condemned the king because he “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Note that the signers wanted to pass laws, not repeal them, and they began by speaking of “the public good,” not about individuals or “the private sector.” They knew that it takes public action — including effective and responsive government — to secure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Where to begin…. yes, the founders wanted to pass laws not repeal them. This should not be surprising. Our Founders were men of the Enlightenment and were implementing their ideas of government in this new land, ideas that did not believe in an intrusive government. But reading this you’d think the Founders were channeling the not yet conceived Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. So, what laws did our Leftist Founders want to pass? The Declaration tells us:

• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people …(This charge refers to a grievance that arose because of the British government's fear that the popular assemblies of the colonies were growing too large and powerful as new communities were formed and additional representatives were elected to the assemblies of the colonies. New Hampshire, South Carolina, and New York passed laws allowing for the establishment of new communities with elected representatives to their respective popular assemblies, all of which were disallowed by King George. Virginia was also constrained by the same policy. The colonists insisted that representation in their assemblies was their right, because government must be by consent of the governed. The British maintained that representation was a privilege granted by the King.)

• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

Radical collectivist stuff, this. It certainly isn’t the positive law that Mr. Dionne and his ilk have been foisting on Americans for 100 years. But Mr. Dionne concludes from our Founder’s wanting to pass some basic laws necessary for proper self-government as benefiting “the public good” and “not about individuals or “the private sector”. Actually, those laws were about securing those previously elucidated “unalienable rights” which is without doubt a public good. Mr. Dionne should investigate what defined “the public good” in the 18th Century before inferring that it means the same in the 21st Century (again, thanks to Progressives). This is semantically dishonest.

Mr. Dionne then turns his attention briefly to the Constitution where he makes the correct assertion that it was created to provide for a stronger central government, but I submit not an all powerful central government. Again, those pesky enumerated powers explain categorically the role the federal government was to play. They may have said “We the People” and not “We the States” in the preamble but there’s nothing in the federalist papers that encourages future Hamiltonians to use the “Commerce Clause” to usurp the intent of enumerated powers. Not even Alexander himself said that and he wrote most of the Federalist Papers.

In Federalist number 23 Alexander Hamilton states the purposes for the union succinctly; “The principal purposes to be answered by union are these -- the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”

It’s interesting to note that Hamilton sees regulation of commerce as the same internationally and domestically. Therefore, the commerce clause was seen as simply the regulation of commerce between the states and not as a loop hole for federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives. Later in the same document he wrote, “… it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with the requisite powers. ”

Yes, not understanding the intent of our Founders could cause us to make “some remarkably foolish choices”. Thanks to the Progressives interpretation we’ve been doing it for over 100 years.

Atlas Shrugged

2011-04-20T23:04:00.001-04:00

Atlas Shrugged has finally made it to the big screen. I found the movie entertaining and emotionally engaging. Is it a "great" movie. No. But it is a good movie with some technical and aesthetic flaws. Dialog in a screenplay of a typical novel is used primarily to develop the characters, the pictures tell the story. But Atlas Shrugged, as noted in the recent edition of "The New Individualist" is not a typical novel. There is an underlying philosophy and political message that can't be communicated completely with visuals, words are needed; specific words. So the dialog may come across as a bit stilted by someone who hasn't read the book. But I think the movie will entice a newcomer to read the book. And that is the ultimate goal of the film.

"Shock Doctrine, USA"? Please!!

2011-02-25T07:34:00.000-05:00

Dr. Krugman writes that Governor Walker's efforts are "an attempt to exploit the fiscal crisis to destroy the last major counterweight to the political power of corporations and the wealthy." This is tenuous at best. These public employee unions are NOT a counterweight to powerfull corporations and the wealthy, they are a counterweight to their fellow citizens, the taxpayers, who, these days are anything but wealthy.

And what's so bad about privatization? Chicago privatized their parking meters to the tune of $3B. It was a good deal, except that they blew through the money to pay the excessive demands of the public employee unions.

To quote The Reverend Wright, "the chickens have come home to roost".

Pope John Paul's II Miracles

2011-01-23T14:11:00.001-05:00

It was determined that Pope John Paul II has only one more miracle to go to meet the requirement for Sainthood. Pope Benedict the XVI has approved the curing of Sister Simon-Pierre of Parkinson's disease, the same disease that Paul II suffered, as a miracle after she found herself cured upon waking from a dream about the dead Pope. She and others had been praying to John Paul II to help her. But I submit that another miracle is not required. Cardinal Bernard Law, formerly the Archbishop emeritus of the Diocese of Boston resigned that office on Dec. 13, 2002 and immediately left for Rome to become Archpriest of the Basilica de Santa Maria Maggiore, at the direction of John Paull II, allegedly only hours before Massachuettes State Troopers arrived with subpoeanas for his appearance before a Grand Jury investigating his part in the cover-up of child molestations. Pretty miraculous in my opinion.

Keith Olbermann & the Hypocrisy of the Left

2011-01-23T13:57:00.003-05:00

Keith Obermann has left MSNBC. I don't know what the brouhaha was all about but I have one question. Why did Keith negotiate a contract for $7.5M per year for 4 years? The left complains loudly about senior executives making more than 20 times the average wage. They cite European companies where that ratio is typical as the model to follow. Using a liberal number of $92,000.00 as the average wage scale for NBC, Mr. Olbermann should have insisted that his contract not exceed $1.8M per year. But, in reality, if $1.8M is what he believes would be a fair salary for the CEO of General Electric, then for the sake of equity, something the left is passionate about, he should have insisted on being paid signifcantly less that $1.8M. I think $900K would have been fair. If it's determined that this divorce was about money, I'm sure it was because Keith was insisting his salary be lowered and he decided to resign to protest MSNBC's intransigence.

NY Times: Jigsaw picture of an accused killer 15 January 2011

2011-01-23T12:52:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:

As a factual presentation, this article is excellent. There are however, two instances of editorial commentary that, not surprisingly, tie Jared Loughner to right-wing extremists. This isn’t accidental. The New York Times and other main stream media outlets are determined to link this incident to right-wing politics. I find it reprehensible.

Both instances are related to his views on the “the need for a new monetary system” that he ostensibly thinks should be “gold and silver”. There are extremes on both the left and the right that would replace our monetary system and based on the economic events of the last couple of years not only extremists are contemplating the need to consider new and even old ideas in this area.

It was gratuitous of the New York Times to link Loughner to right-wing extremists in this article and a retraction is requested.

Email to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

2011-01-13T23:18:00.000-05:00

Dr. Bernanke,

I was extremely dismayed by a response you gave on a recent "60 Minutes" interview. I believe it was Steve Croft who asked you if the Federal Reserve was "printing money" to pay for the Treasury Bonds it is purchasing as part of QE2. To answer that question literally was extremely disingenuous and makes it difficult for me to believe anything you say in the future. You and I both know that by use of the phrase "printing money" Mr. Croft was not referring to printing currency. I'm sure the Fed is not paying for these bonds with currency. He was, in fact, referring to the fact that the Federal Reserve is paying for these bonds with created money. There's no shame in that. It is simply the truth. And for you to obfuscate the obvious is inexcusable.

Larry David Op Ed New York Times Dec. 21, 2010

2011-01-05T20:38:00.000-05:00

To the Editor:

Larry David is a very funny man. But it is a sign of psychological distress when someone uses humor to assuage guilt. The Jews and Catholics have a common tradition when it comes to guilt as a child development tool. As a cradle Catholic, I’m familiar with the phenomenon. It is obvious to me that Mr. David feels extreme guilt for his not having donated his portion of the Bush Tax cuts of the last 8-10 years. He needs to write that check today before his mother finds out. Make it out to the Internal Revenue Service. You’ll feel better in the morning. I promise.

The Plot to Destroy Terrestrial Broadcasting takes Shape

2010-12-04T13:03:00.007-05:00

“…we should expect a linear relationship between costs imposed on broadcasters and the likelihood of them abandoning over-the-air broadcasting. Every dollar of additional costs for broadcasters is one less dollar of profit, and thus reduces the attractiveness of over-the-air broadcasting as a business model. And don’t forget the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: once broadcasting leaves the spectrum, much more valuable services can utilize those frequencies.” Thus spake Stuart Benjamin in early 2009 in “Roasting the Pig to Burn Down the House: A Modest Proposal”

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1949/

Professor Stuart was hired by the FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski later that same year, he “joined the Commission in December 2009 as the agency’s first Distinguished Scholar in Residence. He resides in OSP (Office of Strategic Planning) and works on spectrum reform, First Amendment issues, and long-term strategy (emphasis added). He is on leave from Duke Law School, where he is the Douglas B. Maggs Professor of Law. He specializes in telecommunications law, the First Amendment, and administrative law.” http://www.fcc.gov/osp/resident-scholar.html

It appears the FCC is beginning to take action in keeping with the ideas of Professor Benjamin. On November 30 TVNewsCheck published an article “FCC begins TV Spectrum Revamp”. In the article Chairman Genachowski said, “The spectrum is too valuable and our spectrum needs too great for it to be used inefficiently in this manner, especially given that less than 10% of Americans receive broadcast television only through over-the-air spectrum signals.’’

So, the plan is to move more stations to the VHF band, a band by-the-way that has proved problematic after the digital transition. The idea is to have 2 stations share a single 6MHZ band while retaining their right to “must carry” on cable. This will free up the more desirable UHF band for wireless broadband. But it will also impose yet more cost by forcing some broadcasters to, yet again, buy VHF transmission equipment.

On December 2 TVNewsCheck published a story “FCC Plan Makes VHF a High Priority”. I’ll simply quote from the beginning and end of this piece.

“As part of its plan to shift 120 MHz of spectrum from TV broadcasting to wireless broadband, the FCC wants to pack TV stations more tightly together in the remaining 180 MHz of spectrum to free up some for auction.

To do that most efficiently, it must make the VHF portion of that remaining spectrum (chs. 2-13) more hospitable to broadcasting.”

The article goes into the issues with VHF, citing Television consulting experts who discuss some of the additional costs and reduction in performance broadcasting would experience going back to VHF, concluding with the following paragraphs.

“Since the digital transition, most stations are now broadcasting in the UHF band. Some of them are worried that in trying to improve the VHF band, the FCC is signaling that it intends to force some UHF stations back to the VHF band.”

“Among them is Dan Ullmer, chief engineer at WECT Wilmington, N.C., which made the leap from VHF to UHF in September 2008 when it because (sic) the first station in the nation to switch to all-digital service.”

‘“We have really good coverage along the coast now,” he said. “Going to VHF would be going backwards for us. We have built out all-new UHF facilities, UHF antennas. All that would have to be changed out. We'd have to enter another major transition in the market, which would likely disenfranchise our viewers. They've already been through a major transition here.”’

So, Professor Benjamin’s ideas are becoming manifest. There is no doubt where this is headed. They have made it very clear that the goal is to promote wireless broadband at the expense of terrestrial broadcasting. With the rulemaking vote of November 30, the process begins. It sets the stage for forcing broadcasters back to an inferior frequency band and having THEM pay for it, both of which make broadcasting less viable. Recall Professor Benjamin, “Every dollar of additional costs for broadcasters is one less dollar of profit, and thus reduces the attractiveness of over-the-air broadcasting as a business model.”

Debt, Moral Hazard, Praxeology

2010-11-26T12:39:00.004-05:00

There is a common thread through most of Professor Krugman’s essays; Selective Moral Hazard.

He believes in the concept of moral hazard, but apparently only for bankers. I agree with the conclusion of today’s essay, I just wish he were more consistent in his application. Were we to take into consideration moral hazard when implementing economic/public policies affecting individuals we would bring personal responsibility and praxeology back into our economics.

As a good Keynesian Leftist (excuse the redundancy), Professor Krugman believes government should take responsibility for solving the current financial mess. And in applying moral hazard to this situation it would be logical to ask government to solve a problem for which they are primarily responsible. But that would be like asking a committed AND currently intoxicated alcoholic to run an AA meeting. It’s a mockery.

Our financial system is built on a scheme that has been gradually implemented over the last 100 years. We’ve made the transition from the gold standard to a complete fiat monetary system in several stages, culminating in Nixon’s closing of the gold window in 1971. At that point all international currencies were floating, each against all the others, and countries could no longer exchange American dollars for gold. But money has been created by debt for many, many years because that’s what a fractional banking system does, it creates money through debt. But 100 years ago, at least SOME of the money was back by gold. Now, none of it is. We are currently on a debt standard. Practically all money is created by debt and backed by the economic strength of the issuing country or in the case of the Euro, countries; Hence the problem.

We are reaching the limits of the “debt standard”. Eastern philosophy embraces Yin and Yang and the ebb and flow of change. Everything changes and nothing lasts forever. This debt standard will come to an end. With what shall we replace it? Anything we do will be painful. We could start all over with new debt but it will start us back on the same road. We know where it ends. Perhaps we should take another look at gold. It too will be painful and to implement a classic gold standard would require going back to a true laisser-faire economic system. But doing that would also apply moral hazard equally to all participants in the economy; bankers as well, with bad decisions resulting in bankruptcy. What could be more fair that that?

Socialism, Alaska Style

2010-11-18T22:15:00.003-05:00

What's the first thing that comes to you mind when you think of Alaskans? For me, it's rugged individualism. I've always seen Alaska as the state where its citizens preserve, at least to some degree, the ideal of frontier life. The people there are unique and embody the core ideals of America; tough, self-reliant individuals who make a living in a demanding and somewhat hostile environment.

The state has consistently been represented by Republicans; currently its Governor and Lt. Governor are Republicans, of the 3 person Congressional delegation, two are Republicans and the state legislature is Republican 55 to 45 %. The recently Senatorial election where Lisa Murkowski was re-elected as a write-in over the Tea Party selected Joe Miller should on its surface be somewhat surprising. But I think this election underscores my contention that most Americans are comfortable with a large federal government.

Alaska, I learned depends on the largess of the Federal Government for about 1/3 of its GDP. A significant portion of that is probably the oil profits that are distributed to all the citizens the amount of which was increased by a previous governor, Sarah Palin.

Lisa Murkowski who pretty much inherited her Senate seat when her father died was a protege of Ted Stephens who was famous for his ability to bring home the pork. She instinctively knew that Alaskans didn't want that to end. Joe Miller, whose nomination was endorsed by the Tea Party movement, would have been obligated to not use earmarks and other schemes to raid the federal treasury. So Ms. Murkowski embarked on a write-in campaign and became the first federally elected official to win by write-in since Strom Thurmond in 1954.

This election is just more anecdotal evidence that Americans, even Republicans, are comfortable with the concept of looting ones fellow citizens.

Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader

2010-11-07T23:46:00.003-05:00

Nancy Pelosi has decided to run for Minority Leader and the polticial literati is shocked. They all expected her to resign her seat and go back to San Francisco to play with her grandchildren. Really?? This is a woman who craves power and enjoys the trappings of power. She's an idealogue who wants to impose her policy proscriptions on the masses but make no mistake this is also about Nancy Pelosi, her ego and desire to remain relevant.

C-SPAN this morning is taking calls on the question, "should there be a change of leadership in both parties". It's amazing how much agreement there is on Ms. Pelosi; the Democrats and Republican callers generally agree she should become "Minority Leader". It's been a while since I've seen this level of agreement by Republicans and Democrats.

The Hypocrisy of the Tea Party (and Republicans)

2010-11-07T10:19:00.003-05:00

I saw an interesting statistic recently. A poll on the popularity of Social Security and Medicare revealed that 73 or so percent of the American people support these programs. That’s not very surprising. What is surprising is 62% of self identified Tea Party supporters also are in favor of these programs. Keep in mind that both of these programs were initiated by Democrats, Social Security by F.D.R. and Medicare by Lyndon Johnson. These programs are straight-forward wealth transfer entitlement programs designed to pay benefits to one group with the taxes extracted from another group. The very same type of socialistic programs the Tea Party rails against.

The Tea Party movement is primarily a response to the alarming levels of debt that have accumulated in the Bush 43 and Obama administrations, most of which was caused by the recent economic/financial crisis. But I don’t see the Tea Party as our salvation. True, they’ve awakened many to the problem, but the fact of the matter is they, like many of us, are also part of the problem.

Thirty-two percent of the current Federal Budget goes to Social Security and Medicare. Only 38.6% of the 2011 $3.554T budget is discretionary and almost half of that is defense spending, probably the most constitutional of all spending and the spending that supports what all politicians agree is the “primary” role of government, protection of its citizens. So, from where are the cuts to come??

Most Republicans who are sympathetic to the Tea Party movement like Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee equivocate and only promise an “adult conversation” about solutions while Tea Party politicians like Michele Bachmann are actually discussing cuts in Medicare and Social Security by “weaning” those that don’t need it from the system, this is known in policy circles as “means testing”. It’ll be interesting to see how long she supports such policies when her constituents get wind of this…assuming her constituency tracks the same as those in the above poll.

The Tea Party movement should give freedom loving Americans hope. It shows that liberty still has a pulse. But my point is it’s a weak pulse. To rail against socialism but support SOCIAL security and Medicare when it benefits oneself is hypocritical in the extreme and reveals a perverse understanding of freedom and its corollary, personal responsibility.

Two Questions for Candidate Rob Woodall

2010-10-17T22:33:00.002-04:00

I have two questions. The first is rhetorical for Tea Party supporters and Republicans but I would like an answer from Mr. Woodall. I will preface this question to Mr. Woodall and this audience by telling you I’m a big and small L libertarian and I plan to vote for Mr. Woodall.

We all say we are for small government. We all are concerned about the deficit and the mounting national debt that we will leave for the next generations to pay. We also all know that entitlements, particularly social security and medicare benefits for the Baby Boom generation are the crux of the problem.

Many think it is immoral for the government to tax us and redistribute the money. Well, the government has been taxing us for social security and medicare for decades and redistributing those funds. When the system began to slip toward insolvency in 1983 Congress increased social security taxes ostensibly to shore up Social Security but put the money in the general fund and spent it, leaving IOUs that will need to be funded soon.

Without discussing the constitutionality of SS and Medicare as a redistribution program it is immoral. If so why is it moral for us, when it’s our turn, to accept medicare and social security, knowing full well that we are burdening the next generation with economically debilitating debt and/or additional taxes? Is that not just as immoral? That’s question one. So, we have a choice, or do we, which leads to my second question.

There’s no law that I can find requiring me to register for social security but it appears to be illegal to NOT sign up for medicare when I turn 65? Is that true?

Addicted to Bush? Addicted to Socialism!

2010-07-23T06:27:00.004-04:00

I have no reason to doubt most of Mr. Krugman's figures (See Paul Krugman's editorial in the July 23 edition of the New York Times). Although I suspect the 9% of GDP deficit number being assigned to Mr. Bush is probably not totally accurate. As Mr. Law from Texas who supports "His Eminence" Mr. Krugman's arguments notes the "newly-elected POTUS was required to go to work early by going to DC to engender confidence and leadership during the '08 financial crisis". If so, then he can also take some responsibility for the current deficit. You can't have it both ways.

As a Libertarian, I don't support Republican or Democrats as they are two sides of the same coin and have basically similar policies that change only on the margin. But should the Republicans regain control of Congress in November, something I doubt will happen, the constraints of our current financial situation will hopefully force them to embrace something considered radical. We cannot extricate ourselves from this current mess by traditional tax cuts, or by the quasi-central planning schemes of the Democrats.

We need to change our tax system and go to something consumption based like the FairTax. We need to release private business to do what only free-market capitalism can do, create wealth. If one looks at the miracle of the American experiment since its founding, it has been our belief in the free-market and the actions of individuals in that free-market that has created the wealth we have enjoyed. Even the poorest in this country live lives of relative plenty compared to the poor in the 3rd world.

The causes of our financial situation extend back much longer than the recent Bush administration and I would argue go back decades when the seeds of the housing crisis were planted. Those policies and subsequent Federal Reserve policy and the belief of our ruling class in Keynesian economics' reliance on perpetually low interest rates, promote boom-bust cycles. And so here we are.

It's unrealistic to believe that the ruling class will come to embrace some of the lessons of "Austrian" economics any time soon but leaving that alone, releasing capitalism by radically changing our tax system offers the best hope for the future. Some may consider it risky and ill-advised. I think it's safer than going back to the policies of George Bush or even worse European-style democratic-socialism, both of which won't work and can only make the situation worse.

The Economic Consequences of THE BILL

2010-03-21T15:06:00.003-04:00

The Health Care Bill will pass today. While it may hurt the Democrats politically come November, it will, in the long-run be a net positive for their Party, at least until the effects of this and the accumulated entitlements of the past 70 years catch up with them (and the Republicans) and ruin our currency and our economy.

How have we gotten to this point? It’s a drug called entitlements. It started innocuously enough as a scheme to provide some minimal money to the elderly poor in their declining years. It passed with only 35 or so votes against it. It had vast bi-partisan support. But instead of just providing support for a specific poor group, it was decided to make it a “social insurance” program to which ALL would entitled. In this way the initial recipients would not have the stigma of receiving charity. And since everyone would benefit eventually it guaranteed support (purchased votes) from the Republicans. With that vote we began our gradual slide to economic Armageddon.

The vote today provides another opportunity to addict the American people on the Entitlement Drug. It is a difficult drug to eschew. As more and more people become addicted to the new entitlement the power of the Democrats will grow. Given in small doses over time, it can hook the even most moral, liberty loving citizen.

For example, the Tea Party movement professes to be a lover of liberty and individual responsibility. But, how many of them are willing to give up their Social Security? I think, not many. They know full well there is no account in their name that is their money. They know full well that they’ll be taking money from their younger fellow citizens. They will rationalize their position because they’ve been taxed for 40 years and are therefore entitled to the benefit. And by law, they’re right, but morally, money taken from them by force should not entitle them to extract money from their fellow citizens by force.

Earlier this week Rush Limbaugh mentioned a group of seniors who traveled by bus to Washington to spend a single day lobbying their Representatives. Their complaint is the $500B cut in THEIR Medicare. They’re concern that expanding this entitlement will reduce THEIR entitlement…..this is what we’ve become, a bunch of pigs at the public trough fighting for our morsel.

The cost of this Bill is astronomical. Instead of the almost $1T estimated cost over 10 years it’ll probably be closer to $2.4T; this on top of an estimated $1T ANNUAL deficits EVERY year for the next 10 years. With a current debt of $14T, we’re facing a potential debt of $26.4T DEBT by 2019. And this may be low. At some point the only choice will be printing money to reduce the debt through inflation. Our currency will then devalue at an accelerated pace, leading to a monetary and economic crisis.

If there is a positive side to this vote it is a rather macabre one; an extreme economic crisis brought on by government greed MAY wake the people up to the brilliance of our founding principles; individually responsibility, limited government, economic liberty and peace.

A Libetarian Awakening??

2010-02-21T12:54:00.001-05:00

The CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) meeting this week is notable for two names….Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Glenn Beck the author and radio/television talk show host seems to be a conservative evolving into a libertarian. Ron Paul, the Republican Congressman from Texas, who ran for the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008, has always described himself as a libertarian. He actually ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

Glenn Beck’s appearance and Ron Paul’s winning of the presidential straw poll with 31% are notable. It makes the point that traditional conservatives are, at least to some degree, rebelling against the Republican Party. And if rebelling is too strong a verb, they are at minimum sending a message that business as usual will not do. This along with the Tea Party movement should bring some alarm to Party officials. While the Republicans will pick up seats in the Senate and House this November, they may not do as well as they could if these disgruntled conservatives think the Republican on the ballot is nothing more than a Democrat lite.

Glenn Beck, in his speech, beat up the Republican Party pretty badly, and with good reason. Based on the response to his talk you’d think that conservatives are actually ready to embrace personal responsibility and limited government. According to Mr. Beck the only true function of government is to “protect us from the bad guys”, to wit; a Justice Department and Defense Department….very libertarian. Call me crazy, I don’t think they are ready to really embrace these notions.

The ones who voted for Ron Paul in the straw poll are concerned about the government debt and the economy more than anything else. I don’t think most of them support his foreign policy; isolationism with the exception of trade. Ann Coulter, for one, likes Ron Paul except for foreign policy. This vote is a message to the party to rethink its domestic policy. Ron Paul would shrink the size of government, abolish or seriously refocus the Federal Reserve and go back to a gold standard. He embraces Austrian Economic theory which is the 180 degree alternative to Keynesian Economics. He would abolish Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid…….SCREEEEETCH. WHAT??? You mean I wouldn’t get MY Social Security?

So, what will be the outcome of all this politically? As a perpetual skeptic I’m not expecting much. Our entire culture, even among conservatives, embraces entitlements to some degree; at least when it comes to them individually. Our biggest entitlements are social security and medicare. Together they represent unfunded liabilities of up to $70T by some estimates. They are, therefore, the lion’s share of our future fiscal problems but I’d be willing to bet that a large majority of Republicans expect to get theirs and will not tolerate much “adjustment”.

But that’s ok too. When the whole system implodes people will learn that life and death go on and the ultimate truth; that they are responsible for their own lives will be learned. And the lessons of our Founders will be re-learned.

Scott Brown and Freedom

2010-01-24T11:50:00.001-05:00

I’m encouraged that there may actually be a spark of freedom left in the American psyche. The election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate from the State of Massachusetts is nothing short of amazing. It gives to a Republican the Senate seat that has been held by a Democrat since JFK defeated Henry Cabot Lodge in 1952. In contemporary politics it is at minimum a repudiation of at least some of the policies (ok, one policy, healthcare) of President Obama and the Democratic Party. Republicans will extrapolate for narrow political purposes the implications of this election. But Republicans are more interested in regaining power than in promoting freedom. The broader question is what does this mean for the future of freedom in our country?

I’ll state my conclusion up front, probably not much. In the continuum of America’s decline toward democratic socialism, this is but a blip in the positive direction. The American people are, generally, there are exceptions to be sure, but generally they are more interested in promoting their interests in federal largess at the expense of their fellow citizens. If you doubt that, how many of us would be willing to forgo our social security? That payment is forced extraction from a current tax payer directly to a current recipient. Sure, the government has been taking money from you by force for years, if not decades, but does that negate the amorality of your living at the expense of others? I don’t exempt myself from the dilemma. I hope to not take Social Security when I turn 66. My wife won’t like my decision. It could get dicey.

The Republicans are energized and think they can gain seats in both the Senate and House this year. And they probably will. They may even take control of the Senate or the House which will definitely force the Democrats to move back to the center. The Democrats grand attempt to move the country left will have failed. But that doesn’t mean the electorate has realized the error of their ways and will now embrace freedom, free market capitalism, constitutionally limited government and individual responsibility. No, the only thing this election reveals is that the voters of Massachusetts were concerned that they may get less money back from the federal government than they send. This notion of using government to loot others is explained very well in “The Law”, by Frederick Bastiat. In the section entitled “The Choice before us”, he explained.

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs.

Unfortunately, we’ve made our choice and this election will not change our decision.

In God we Trust

2010-01-16T16:32:00.004-05:00

If I hear another survivor of the earthquake in Haiti thank God for saving them, I'm going to pull out my last few strands of hair. So God decided to save your sorry ass and not the other oh pick a number, say, 50-200 thousand people. Seems to me he could save the whole bunch, I'm mean, damn, He or She is God, for God's sake.

The good Reverend Pat Robertson, who can always be counted on to contribute the most incredible quote, says that Haiti was cursed by God for making a pact with the devil a couple of hundred years ago in exchange for helping them break away from the French. The French? Since when has a country needed God’s help to defeat the freaking French? But I digress. My ‘Ole buddy Pat is the only one making any sense here. There has to be SOME reason why this god forsaken country has been so forsaken by God. Pat is being vilified by Christians and non-Christians alike for his assertion but at least his point of view has some logical consistency. There has to be some reason God would save some and not all. Either that or there is no unified holistic intelligence in the Abrahamic tradition controlling every aspect of life on earth, including earthquakes. Me thinks it’s the latter.

.

From an email to my sister...

2009-12-03T21:56:00.001-05:00

I'm actually a recent convert to Mr. Obama policies, if not his politics. The American people are like alcoholics and drug addicts, except they're addicted to government. You have to hit bottom before you realize you have to change your life, or in this case, your beliefs. And no one can convince you to change until you've hit bottom. I'm therefore embracing the policies of the left wholeheartedly. We'll find that bottom sooner rather than later, right about the time we run out of people to pay for all this government. We've been on a long slow spiral down the road to socialism. I say let's take the plunge. The only way the left will admit they're wrong is to let them prove it to themselves. It may take 30 or maybe 100 years or so. But perhaps when people get hungry enough they'll come to realize that they are really responsible for themselves and the classical ideals of liberalism will come back into vogue. And the cycle will begin again.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and getting someone else to pay for your life is an everlasting truth and utopia is around the corner. God, I hope so.

President Obama and bowing

2009-11-15T09:35:00.004-05:00

I gave President Obama a bit of a pass on the bow to the Saudi Prince. I can't be so forgiving regarding the Japanese Emperor. Coming from the culturally sensitive Democratic Party one MUST assume He knows the protocol regarding bowing in that culture; it denotes relative status. An inferior person must bow lower than the superior person. The greater the disparity between the bows the greater the difference in status.

So what to make of this significantly lower bow before the Emperor who is considered descendant from the sun goddess Amaterasu-o-mi-kami. Perhaps the President intended to communicate to the Japanese people and the world that He is NOT a Deity. Did He want to dispel any and all notions such as those promulgated by Evan Thomas that President Obama in an effort to rise above national parochialism ".... is sort of god...."?

Bringing the symbolism back from the realm of mysticism, this gesture also has the effect of communicating that He considers himself inferior to the Emperor. And as the representative of the United States, that it too, by extension, is inferior. I'm sure this is NOT a good idea but it is consistent with the philosophy of the left that eschews the concept of American Exceptionalism, which they are quickly discreating though their domestic and foreign policy prescriptions.

No one knows for sure where these policies will lead. But global politics like any body-politic abhors a vacuum. The result will not be world-wide egalitarianism but the ascendancy of some power or alliance of powers to replace us.

Boy Oh Boy, Maureen Dowd rebuttal

2009-09-20T13:30:00.001-04:00

To the Editor:

It’s now official, Ms Dowd has spoken. All the protests against the policies of President Obama and the Democrats is racism. I reject this categorically.

I’ll admit there is an element that is racist. In the crowd on the Mall September 12, 2009 you could pretty much count them. They were carrying “The Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia”, a.k.a. the “Confederate” flag, which, by the way, it wasn’t. It is an over generalization to say they are all racist but for the argument let’s assume they are. I’m sure as a percentage of all flags carried that day it was a very small minority.

There is very legitimate political position in this country that is antithetical to the policy positions of this administration. Why would you not expect it to rise up when this country lurches to left in such a dramatic way? These protests are supported by Republicans, Libertarians, independents and perhaps a few Democrats.

But the problem is larger than policy differences. It more about process. An article by William Schambra in the September issue of National Affairs, “Obama and the Policy Approach”, http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/obama-and-the-policy-approach illustrates the problem. This article reveals the core problem that brought 10’s of thousands to the Mall.

“Progressive reformers throughout the 20th century came to denigrate the wisdom and relevance of the American Constitution, which frustrated centralization and coordination by dispersing governing power across the states and over the branches of government. Once thought essential to American freedom, these institutions now came to be seen as impediments to coherent national governance.”

The problem is not racism. The problem is political hi-jacking of the Constitution. Ok, if you want to “fundamentally transform the country”, do it legally, by amendment to the constitution.

Majority Rule on Health Care Reform August 29, 2009

2009-09-13T22:34:00.000-04:00

To the Editors,

The NY Times, as expected, endorses the use of the “nuclear option”, the arcane “budget reconciliation” parliamentary rule to push through legislation that will eventually take over 1/7th of the U.S. economy. You’re to be congratulated.

This effort will hopefully result in a revolt at the polls in 2010. I can only hope that the Libertarian Party will take advantage of this and provide a slate of candidates to run against both Democratic and Republican incumbents. Currently the Democrats pose the gravest threat to our Republic, but the last 8 years of Republican rule set the stage. The only way to preserve it is to vote in Libertarians, the only party that truly understands the values of our Founders and our Constitution.

If not, this bill and future bills yet to be passed will surely “transform” this county, as the President promised during the campaign. The people of the United States will then come to understand how bad life can be under leftist dogma. Perhaps then they’ll do something about it.

An email to Kevin Baker

2009-06-21T18:21:00.003-04:00

Thank you for writing your Harper's piece, "Barack Hoover Obama".

To the gentleman on this mornings program who confronted you with the question of who was going to pay for all these programs you responded with a generalization about the widening gap between the rich and poor. I won't deny the accuracy of your statement. However, that doesn't detract from his point that SOMEONE has to pay for this. I did question the gentleman's statistics regarding the distribution of taxes across the various income levels and found the following. Included is the URL to the entire document.

"Taxpayers with an AGI of at least $388,806, the top 1 percent of taxpayers, accounted for 22.1 percent of AGI for 2006. This represents an increase in income share of 0.9 percentage points from the previous year. These taxpayers accounted for 39.9 percent of the total income tax reported, an increase from 39.4 percent in 2005. The top 5 percent of taxpayers accounted for 36.7 percent of AGI and 60.1 percent of total income tax. To be included in the top 5 percent, a taxpayer must have reported AGI of at least $153,542, whereas, in 2005, the cutoff for this group was $145,283." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09winbulinincome.pdf

While the gentlemen's statistics may have been off, his point was spot on. Someone has to pay for this and your support of progressive taxation, which on the surface appears moral, is in fact, immoral. I invite you to re-read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I'm sure a man of your literary accomplishment has read it at least once. While the entire novel uses reductio ad absurdum throughout to make its point, it does make its point and explains the logical consequences of a morality based on need rather than on rational individual self-interest and free-market capitalism. In our current disconcerting economic and cultural environment, it appears prescient.

I agree with you that President Obama's policies will lead us to disaster. Your suggestion that he embrace "radically practical" policies will result in the realization of disaster even sooner. You'll be surprised to learn that I wish he would listen to you. Only economic disaster will force the people of this country to reassess its moral premises, reject the policies of the progressive left and embrace libertarian concepts of individual freedom, economic freedom and most importantly, individual responsibility. And if by some miracle a move to Obama engineered European style democratic-socialism results in a quasi-utopia, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.
I may die thinking I was wrong. It may take decades of feasting off of the producers of society before utopia becomes hell when the doers slowly give up doing or perhaps when a John Galt like figure orchestrates a "strike" of the doers against their looters.
Best Regards,
Theirn Scott
"I have never encountered any actual evidence, convincing to an ordinary jury, that vox populi is actually vox Dei. The proofs, indeed, run the other way. The life of the inferior man is one long protest against the obstacles that God interposes to the attainment of his dreams, and democracy, if it is anything at all, is simply one way of getting 'round those obstacles." H.L. Mencken

We Can't Afford it Anymore!!

2009-04-05T19:52:00.001-04:00

The U.S. is the predominant economy in the world. As such, our primary responsibility to ourselves and by extension to the rest of the world is to maintain a strong economy. The U.S. dollar, even in its relatively weakened state is still the reserve currency (China’s desire to use the IMF’s SDR, notwithstanding), but is under significant pressure. Maintaining a relatively strong dollar and a strong U.S. economy is in the best interest of our selves and the world. But we can’t do it on our own and we may have to take radical decisions to bring our economic and physical security into equilibrium.

The U.S. economy is currently in recession with almost $11T of debt. It’s hard to keep up with the number; it changes so often. We will add another $1.3T in debt in the current fiscal year. It’s conceivable that a year from now our total debt could equal 90% of our GDP, which is currently about $14T, although it may not be that high a year from now. The CBO recently predicted that the national debt in 10 years will be close to $20T. This debt and the unfunded future obligations of social security and medicare (about $54T) are the biggest threats to the U.S. economy and therefore to the world economy. It is no wonder that President Obama sees his first priority to be the viability of our economy. His policy prescriptions, however, will probably not be helpful in alleviating these long-term problems.

The conventional wisdom is the continued viability of the U.S. economy takes a higher priority over its debt. And in the short-run (the only time span of a politician) this is an arguable, albeit wrong-headed, position. The long-run implications are not in doubt. Lots of fiscal stimulus combined with a significant expansion of the money supply is a recipe for one of two outcomes: significant, perhaps hyper-inflation with one or more bubbles or if we’re lucky a return to the stagflation of the 70’s. Representative Barney Frank (D, MA.) said on February 4, no problem. The Fed can deflate the money supply as quickly as it had inflated it. True, but I guarantee Congressman Frank will not like the economic consequence, another recession.

There has to be a recovery for inflation to manifest itself. With the amount of stimulus in the recently passed bill, it’s very plausible that we will have a recovery. Once a recovery begins the Fed, typically, will be vigilant to keep inflation in check. It will do this by artificially increasing interest rates. Parenthetically, it is by artificially reducing interest rates that the Fed has contributed to the bubbles that created the current problems. But the concern now is a slight recovery will ignite significant inflation due to the amount of money that had been pumped into the economy. If the Fed is incapable of accomplishing this in a nuanced way it will have to increase rates to the point of driving the economy into another recession as Paul Voelker did in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. I don’t envy Mr. Bernake. His job will be all the harder when our ability to borrow becomes impossible due to a lack of lenders. At that point the political pressure to “print money” may be irresistible. This would lead to a significant debasing of the U.S. dollar with extremely deleterious affects to the world economy the worse being severe world-wide inflation.

Debt is at the root of most of our problems. There is simply too much debt, but then the entire world financial system is based on debt. No debt, no money; literally. But such is what the world-wide financial system has evolved into. How we establish economic equilibrium in a debt-ridden, fiat money based world economy is the question to be resolved. At one time we had a gold standard, which was found to be too restricting. It was gradually replaced with a debt standard beginning in 1933 but culminating with the closing of the gold window by Richard Nixon in 1971. It was at that point that the inconvertibility of foreign reserves to gold established a world-wide “fiat” monetary system which is backed by the strength of the various economies and nothing else.

The world needs to be engaged in saving the world economy and the key is to insure we save the most magnificent economic engine in human history, the United States. We are about 25% of the world GDP, while we are only about 4.5% of its population. Is it good for the U.S. to be disproportionately that much richer than the rest of the world? This is not a moral question. It is not immoral for the U.S. to be so rich and it didn’t happen by accident. It happened because the U.S. is, relatively, freer than the rest of the world. It therefore grew disproportionately and thereby became a world power both economically and militarily. But we became, in the language of psychologists, an enabler of bad habits in the rest of the world. The West and others in the world became dependent on us for security. It now has to end because we simply can’t afford it anymore. We can’t afford to consume conspicuously and we can’t afford to be engaged in the world except economically. Militarily we need to disengage.

This is a radical position to take. But, the fact of the matter is, in additional to our fiscal distress, there is little stomach in the U.S or Europe to engage our enemies aggressively. The way we’re fighting we’re bound to lose eventually, anyway. And in the meantime we’ll waste billons of dollars in the effort.

The U.S. has been the protector of the world for 70 years. As the only surviving economy after WWII, it was logical that the U.S. should take the lead protecting the West from Communism. But we are in a new situation. Traditional Communism has been defeated. Our profligate spending, both governmentally and personally, have brought us to the precipice. We must step back. Others must step forward.

Our enemies will get much solace from our withdrawal and we will put ourselves and Europe at risk. But a significant number of people believe the U.S. is the source of all evil in the world. By withdrawing, with the caveat that if attacked we will respond in like kind without concern for “collateral damage”, we give our enemies the opportunity to act on their often pronounced rhetoric that if the U.S. would withdraw they would have no reason to fight us.

Personally, I’m not at all sure that they would not proceed with an effort to acquire a nuclear weapon and explode it in a major European or American city. If they don’t the world may usher in an era of peaceful, economically based relations. If they continue their belligerence and explode a nuclear device 100,000 people or more could be killed. As someone who lives near a major American city, it’s a risk I’m willing to take.

Should they do so, any action we take will clearly be in self-defense and we’ll have the sympathy and support of the world and perhaps the backbone to eliminate our enemies once and for all.

The End of the Financial World as We Know It January 3, 2009

2009-01-16T00:13:00.002-05:00

To the Editor:

I was intrigued by the title of this op-ed as I've become convinced that our financial system has a significant fundamental problem. Messrs. Lewis and Einhorn seemed to identify the disease when they opined that our handling of money is "madness". They should have written "money supply".

There is a body of economic thought that predicted the Great Depression and the "boom, bust" cycles of the last couple of decades. It is known as the "Austrian School". Unlike Classical or Keynesian Economics it has a demonstrable explanation of the business cycle, the heart of which is interest rates, its manipulation and the affect that has on production and investment. Interest rates should be governed by the free-market; kept artificially low they will inevitably produce market "bubbles".

We found the limitations of the gold standard in the early 30's and may have now found the limitations the "debt" standard. Our debt based fiat monetary system needs to be re-thought. Breton Woods I was disbanded in the early 70's. The system we have now is obviously badly broken. We need a Breton Woods II, NOW.

The Problem that can't be named is named!!

2008-12-27T00:23:00.003-05:00

You know we’re in a significant debt crisis when The New York Times editorial page yells “uncle”. It did so on Sunday, November 30, 2008 in an editorial entitled “Bailing Away”. The New York Times editorial page is not known for being queasy about government intervention, but here they are worrying about the inflationary effects of all this debt, most of which is financed by “the Treasury…borrowing money and the Fed… printing it.”

One commentator recently said that after finding the limits of a gold standard based financial system in the 1930’s we are now finding the limits to a debt based financial system. It is therefore ironic for a problem born in debt; mortgage debt in particular but too much debt in general, the solution being offered is more debt; government debt.

It is possible that some short-term marginal uptick in the economy will be forthcoming from massive government “investments” be they bailouts of private industries or infrastructure improvements. We may see some short-term rebound in the economy and stock market, but it is difficult to see how the long-term economic outlook cannot but be negative.

When F.D.R. began implementing the New Deal, the federal government was about 2-3% of GDP. Today the federal government is currently about 18-20% but may approach 50% in the next few years. In 1932 the public debt was about $16B in 1932 dollars, which is about $206B in 2000 dollars. By the beginning of the war the debt was about $48B or $565B currently. At the end of WWII the debt was $269B or $5T in 2000 dollars, about ½ our current debt of about $10.7T. An important difference is much of the debt in 1945 was owed to Americans. Savings Bond a.k.a. War Bonds were marketed to U.S. citizens to get most of the money that had been hoarded during the Depression back into circulation. Today about 25% of the debt is owed to foreigners.

It’s interesting to note that as a percentage of GDP, our current debt situation is NOT the highest it’s been since WWII. That distinction goes to 1950 when our public debt was 94.1% of GDP. In 2008 our debt will equal about 73% of GDP, which is estimated to be about $14T. However, in 1950 social security and medicare didn’t face the demographic challenge it does today; a challenge that amounts to a $55T plus unfunded obligation. Plus, with hindsight, we know the country was on the cusp of about 15 years of significant growth. Today, we’re one year into a significant recession; probably the worse since WWII, that will probably last into 2010. It is, therefore, very hard to envision we’re about to enter a 15 to 20 year period of 3-4% annual growth, the kind of growth, that only with a significant reduction of the federal budget, has any hope of retiring the accumulated debt.

The prevailing wisdom is that in the current economic environment, government must intervene, deficits and debt be damned. The proof given is F.D.R. and the raving success he had in the 1930’s. However, Roosevelt’s policies worked more against growth than in support of it. Going from 25% unemployment to 14% in 9 years with a median rate of 17.2% is not a particularly great record. A factor that may influence some of today's Republicans to support intervention as much Democrats is a political culture that increasingly sees government as the problem-solver of last resort. And as we all know, getting re-elected is more important than doing what you believe is right.

The end result of all this debt, which may, in the next few years exceed our GDP, is to insure the further devaluation of the dollar via inflation, which will reduce the attractiveness of dollar based assets, which will force interest rates up, which will increase the cost of servicing our debt, which may drive us into bankruptcy.

Only unfettered capitalism and peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world can save us. More on that peaceful coexistence part later.

Keynes Would have seen it Coming....Really??

2008-10-15T00:17:00.002-04:00

Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post in response to an Op Ed by Robert Skidelsky on Oct. 14, 2008

To the Editor:

With market capitalism on its heels, Keynesian economics is being saluted by the likes of Robert Skidelsky and Nouriel Roubini with their concomittant load of FDR style "investment" suggestions. Excellent ideas all and even better timing. We have a cash debt of $10T and unfunded liabilities of $50T plus brought on primarily by FDR programs like Social Security, LBJ's add-on Medicare and in the spirit of bi-partisanship Geoge Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit guerdon for the elderly and more importantly, 70 million soon-to-be elderly voting baby-boomers.

The pendulum is swinging far to the left and Mr. Obama hasn't even won the election yet. He will of course, by a landslide.

All the work being done to save the world's financial system in response to the government induced, greed enhanced, mortgage meltdown will go for naught due to an inability to see the real root of the problem; a fiduciary monetary system that can, ultimately, never be controlled by man. A monetary system can only be controlled by decentralized and competing sound monetary systems.

I would like to say this is going to be fun to watch, but it won't. It will be painful.

The Debt Bomb by Rudolph Penner

2008-10-10T00:36:00.002-04:00

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=901194&renderforprint=1

I can't give this article large enough distribution. It should be required reading for every American. It succinctly describes the implications of our mountain of debt in light of the current crisis. And the opportunity it presents to the next president.

Less anyone think this is some radical libertarian think-tank, it's not. The Urban Institute is a genuine non-partisan public policy think-tank. It was founded by L.B.J. in the '60s and the trustees appear to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats. Of the names I recognize, many, if not most, are Democrats.

There is nothing but truth here. I ask that you forward this to everyone in your address book and recommend they do the same. We need to understand the larger problem. This economic situation is as important, if not more important than the war. For one thing, we'll not be able to fight it much longer if our economy falls apart and should that happen, we'll become even more vulnerable.

It matters not if either Barack Obama or John McCain is elected. They both have spending plans that will have to be canceled or severely modified. Both of them will face an enormous problem, one as president and one as a U.S. Senator. Whomever is elected, he will need our support to get our debt problem under control. This article will help convince the American people the seriousness of the problem. It would help if they would also watch the documentary I.O.U.S.A., a documentary in which Warren Buffet, a supporter of Barack Obama, appears.

The Shift

2008-10-06T21:37:00.003-04:00

In this election America will make a significant political shift from the center-right position to the center left or maybe just left. We will elect the most left-leaning politician ever. It has become apparent that John McCain will lose on November 4 and lose big. It will probably be an electoral landslide for Obama. This is disconcerting but it is reality. The Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) induced financial crisis was the last nail in the Republican’s coffin. The president and his party, right or wrong, get the blame or the credit for the state of the economy. The Republicans cannot recover from this. Not with a president as unpopular as this one.

Sarah Palin initially brought hope to the party. She seemed to breathe life into it. It was thought that she might be the magnet to bring those blue-collar (white) Reagan Democrats back into the fold, which could bring Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and other battleground states to the Republicans. But this economic crisis, and it is a serious crisis, will be the end of that. Governor Rendell, on ABC’s “This Week” used the following metaphor. And I paraphrase, “If you’re caught in a flood and a man on the bank has a rope, you don’t care if he’s white or black, Jew, Gentile or Muslim. All you care about is he has a rope and may be able to save you.” Obama’s poll numbers have been steadily increasing since the crisis and unless there’s a foreign policy crisis to offset it, they will continue.

An Obama victory in the current economic climate, however, is problematic. Unless Obama repudiates his campaign promises he will increase the capital gains tax and repeal the Bush tax cuts. He also has numerous programs planned that will increase spending. None of this will help the situation, with the possible exception of the spending programs. The tax increases will without doubt make it much worse. And the additional debt is its own problem. But the American people in their ignorance will think a move to the left will solve our economics problem. It won’t. But then neither will electing the Republicans.

A radical new approach is needed. The patient needs surgery. It should be apparent to everyone that the country is in serious trouble. The country needs to embrace unfetered capitalism, less government and a return to a sound monetary system. Our two predominant political parties are incapable of delivering the remedy. Freedom works.

Will Race Decide the Election?

2008-09-07T10:45:00.002-04:00

Dick Polman in todays Philadelphia Inquirer suggests it will. http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080907_The_American_Debate__It_s_little_discussed__but_Obama_s_race_may_be_decider.html

The vast majority of Republicans will not be voting for Mr. Obama, my mother-in-law being an exception that proves the rule. Most Republicans will not support any candidate with positions as far left as Mr. Obama.

The vast majority of Libertarians will not be voting for Mr. Obama. They see the ever expanding federal government as the overwhelming problem facing the country. While many may be somewhat sympathetic to his positions on the war in Iraq, they have a candidate, Bob Barr and will probably vote for him; all twelve of us.

There are a rather large number of people in the middle. These are dedicated Independents who vote Republican or Democratic or even Libertarian. They are always the key to any election assuming the Democrats and Republicans play their expected rolls.

The vast majority of Democrats WILL be voting for Mr. Obama, but as Mr. Polman points out in his article about 12% of Democratic voters cite race as problematic to their supporting Mr. Obama. These are people you would expect to be supportive of Mr. Obama's left of center policy prescriptions. FYI, there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Mr. Polman extrapolates that 12% number to the larger electorate and it is not an illogical thing to do. But Mr. Polman should be under no delusion. If Mr. Obama loses the election, it will not be due to racist Republcians or racist Libertarians or racist Independents. It will be because of racist Democrats.

Obama, McCain and playing the race card

2008-08-03T23:40:00.003-04:00

I have to admit to being confused while listening to C-SPAN recently. Practically all the callers, some of whom were “professing” to be Republicans, were nonplused about McCain playing the race card with the Brittany/Paris ad. I tried to understand how this could be since it was Barack Obama who made a statement that had overt references to race on July 30, and I quote, “They’re gonna try to say that I’m a risky guy. They’re gonna try and say, well you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bill and 5 dollar bills…”. There have been protestations by those in the press such as Andrea Mitchell, who said that no one in attendance at this event thought he was talking about race (apparently Andrea can read minds). But the NY Times thinks this statement was in response to McCain’s racial attack, so by that measure it must have been racial if it is in to respond to a racial attack.

This wasn’t the first time Obama alluded to race. In fact, on June 20 in Jacksonville, he did more than just allude to race, he said, “They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?” It doesn’t take a mental giant to juxtapose those two statements and come to the logical conclusion that they are saying the same thing. Like the July 30 statement, this was in the future tense. He was warning of future attacks by the McCain campaign.

So what exactly did the McCain ad say that triggered the July 30 version? Have you seen the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton “celebrity” campaign spot? I couldn’t find a clean clip but this piece includes the essence it.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/28645/nbc-nightly-news-with-brian-williams-paris-britneyand-barack-obama

This ineffectual, somewhat vapid attempt to portray Obama as vapid, has been described by the New York Times as an attempt to play “the race card”. Instead of trying to explain this I’ll just post the operative paragraph from the July 31 NY Times editorial which explains the connection.
“The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.”

And this ladies and gentlemen is the subliminal message behind the “Brittany/Paris” campaign ad; Obama with white women. So, by logical extension this classic race batting technique from the Jim Crow era means Brittany and Paris are the representatives of virtuous young white women? At minimum this reveals the absurdity of the New York Times or the stupidity of the McCain campaign.

On August 2 Mr. Obama held a news conference. He admitted that his earlier comments had a racial component. But insisted he wasn’t playing the race card but rather was just trying to explain that the Republican ad, while not racial, was designed to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about him. He said that his biography is atypical and that Republicans are going to exploit his youth and inexperience and somewhat unusual life path because they don’t have a plan for the future and instead want to make him the issue.

Well Mr. Obama needs to get used to being the issue, because this election is a referendum on him. In an undeniable Democratic year, that his lead versus McCain is effectively within the margin of error on national polls, speaks volumes to the unease the American people feel. He should be ahead by 10 points. The ill ease isn’t about race. It’s about ideology. This country has been center-right politically for a very long time. His election means a significant move to the left and a significant number of independents and moderates are concerned about where an Obama presidency will take America.

“Politics ain’t beanbag”, Tip O’Neal is often quoted to have said. But it seems that Obama wants to coat himself with racial Teflon. Obama is going to try and spin any criticism of him that is not issue related, to race. He will try to use race to deflect any and ALL criticisms by making the Republicans defensive about appearing racist. Remember what happened to the Clintons in the primaries. If it can successful against Democrats, it should be a cake-walk against Republicans.

Here’s an example. There was some criticism of Obama being arrogant especially after the speech in Germany. A caller to C-SPAN tried to spin the use of arrogance (when coming from a Republican) as code for “uppity”. In fact, on ABC’s “This Week”, David Gergen made that very argument. As a southerner, he said the real message was very clear to him. Well, it went over the head of this Southerner. If that analogy sticks then arrogance will soon fall from the political lexicon this season. But I don’t think the Republicans will take this lying down. Senator Lindsey Graham made a vociferous defense of this and said they will not allow to be done to them what was done to the Clintons. We’ll see.

This racial Teflon tactic could backfire for Obama. He has been trying to portray himself as post-racial. There ain’t nothin’ post-racial about any of this. If he keeps this up he will further alienate those blue-collar Democrats and independents that he will need to win this election. And if he loses, it will all be because he made race an issue.

Libertarian Party nomination of Bob Barr is good news for Democrats

2008-05-26T11:25:00.004-04:00

The Libertarian Party yesterday nominated Bob Barr for President and Wayne Allyn Root for Vice-President. Mr. Barr was elected on the 6th ballot. The nominees on this ballot, in addition to Barr were Mary Ruwart, Wayne Allyn Root and None of the Above. Barr won with 54% of the vote.

Shortly after the results of the 5th ballot were announced Root took the podium to endorse Barr in hopes (or probably more accurately, after a non-smoking back-room deal) to become his VP.

It’s not hard to predict that this effort will probably be as big a failure as previous elections. The Libertarian Party rarely gets more than 1 percent of the vote.

But this year could be different. Bob Barr is a very eloquent politician. He may be a Johnny come lately to libertarianism but he seems to be a dedicated convert. His VP, Wayne Allyn Root, is also a newcomer and he too comes from the Republican Party. Mr. Root is an extremely eloquent and energetic man. He has a certain charisma that Mr. Barr does not. They will make a good team.

Hence the problem for Republicans; Georgia could easily go to the Democrats with native son Barr in the race as a Libertarian. Georgia is probably one of the most libertarian states in the country. Neal Boortz , a very popular nationally syndicated radio talk show host broadcasts from WSB in Atlanta. He’s a pro Iraq War libertarian who seems to be leaning toward John McCain. But Barr is very popular; popular enough to pull enough votes from McCain to put Georgia in the Democratic column.

Georgia has 15 electorial votes, that’s 5.5% of the 270 needed to win. In a very tight election this could be very significant.

I promoted John McCain to become the Republican nominee and he is the best one for the current climate as only he can appeal to moderates and independents. His veto pen would be the only hope for slowing down what will be an avalanche of spending and tax increases once the Democrats get in office with their increased majority in Congress.

But here’s another thought; the Libertarians have an opportunity to improve their brand this election. There may still be a spark of liberty within the American people. And we need that spark to become a conflagration if we’re going to save this republic. Barr and Root could tap into the large donor list of Ron Paul and compete and in the process awaken a latent libertarianism that I have to believe still exists. They won’t win and they could guarantee a Democratic victory but to quote P.J. O’Rourke, “There is only one thing that gives me hope as a Republican, and that is the Democrats. It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”

The question is what is better for America in the long-run? Is it better to elect John McCain and hope he will be a bulwark against a Democratic Congress creating gridlock and thereby basically maintaining the status-quo. Or should we vote Libertarian help the only party that has a long-term chance to restore our republic to its founding principles.

Right now I just don’t know.

No Country for Old Men

2008-04-22T07:35:00.004-04:00

This is off the path of what typically is found on this site.

I'm ambivaent about the issue of abortion. My position is basically constitutional; the states should decide, it's not a federal issue. And many people both on the left and right are not comfortable with the way privacy was used to decide Roe v. Wade. I say this only to introduce a slice of Americana as found in the book "No Country for Old men", a great book that was made into a great movie that won best picture. Here's the last paragraph of the opening to Chapter 7.

Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing this and the right wing that. I ain't even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the saying goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was saying somethin bad about them, but of course that's a high complement in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don't like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam, I don't think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don't have much doubt but what she'll be able to have an abortion. I'm goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she'll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 29, 2008

2008-03-29T11:42:00.002-04:00

A major tenet of leftist philosophy is a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Leftists generally are against individualism and identify more with groups. They generally believe collectivism is a better way to attain our common goals than with individual efforts and no one can deny that in some instances organized collective effort is best. One should bow to the collective wisdom to attain the common good.

Let's apply this philosophy to the current situation within the Democratic Party. We have 2 individuals running for president. Only one of them can become the nominee. It is rapidly becoming the prevaling wisdom within and without the party that a protracted primary campaign will become, and to many minds has become, damaging to the parties chances of winning in November. With every day that passes the Democrats are providing more and more fodder for future Republican commercials.

So why hasn't one of these candidates capitulated? Isn't that the proper thing to do for the "common good" of the Democratic Party? Mrs. Clinton, by just about every metric, cannot win the nomination without creating a significant schism. Why doesn't she concede? And Mr. Obama, he's relatively young and even though he has a slight but insurmountable lead, he could use some additional experience; why not agree to become Mrs. Clinton's vice-president? He could then run for president 8 years hence, several years before his 60th birthday.

The Republicans, that band of darwanistic individuals, seem to be much more civilized in this area. They traditionally rally around the putative favorite early on. This cycle was a bit more contentious than usual, but in the end they came together and much sooner than the Democrats, in no small part due to their winner take all philosophy in the primaries.

When it comes to coveting power, the Democrats are a level above the Republicans. The Republicans are just as capable of abusing their power. One need look no further than the Republican run congresses since 1994 to see how power can be abused. Or President Bush and the expondential expansion of presidential power for which he has been responsible.

But there's one difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats believe power is their birth-right. How can it not be? Their whole reason for wanting power is so they can make your life better. After all, they know what's best for you. They're not in this for themselves. It's all about making sure you're better off. And they're happy to take advantage of others in the society to accomplish that goal. They are therefore deserving of power.

There's not a penny's worth of policy difference between Obama and Clinton. Either one is fully capably of implementing the Democratic Party's quasi-socialist agenda. So the reason neither one will give up is simply this; their thirst for power is infinitely greater than their concern for the integrity of the Democratic Party. Hypocrisy in politics is unavoidable.

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 27, 2008

2008-03-24T22:32:00.003-04:00

It's getting hard to keep up with all the latest cannibalist commentary from Democrats about Democrats:

Bill Clinton suggested the American people have 2 good, patriotic candidates from which to choose; Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

James Carville, the Ragin' Cajun, said Govenor Bill Richardson's (former Clinton cabinet officer) endorsement was particularly timely, Holy Week, the same week that Judas took 30 pieces of silver. I'm so glad most Cajun's aren't like Mr. Carville.

Bill Richardson said he wasn't going to get in the gutter with Mr. Carville, then in the next breath said the comment by Carville was "typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton."

Not bad entertainment...

The Obama Speech

2008-03-22T09:19:00.000-04:00

There has been an almost euphoric aura around the campaign of Barack Obama. It continues albeit to a lesser degree after the controversy surrounding the statements of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor. Mr. Obama, being the excellent politician that he is, took immediate action and gave an excellent speech this past Tuesday inwhich he addressed the multi-faceted problem of race with an honest appraisal of the situation from both perspectives.

From the main stream press there has been almost universal encomia. Race, the most divisive issue in this country, an issue that has beeen responsible for much suffering on many levels has come into this presidential contest; you knew it would. While the speech was very good, it was not perfect and raised serious questions regarding his commitment to his principles and ability to lead.

He made a moral equivalence between his pastor whose comments negatively influenced literally thousands of people on a regular basis as the same as his white grandmother's racial comments that made him "cringe".

He made a second moral equivalence between Ms. Ferraro's comments about Mr. Obama's success being due to his being black and the implication by "some" of her "deep-seated racial bias" and Reverend Wright's incendiary remarks; to which she took significant umbrage. This exchange didn't do anything but accelerate the growing schism within the party.

But these were relatively minor errors.

In his speech Mr. Obama said, "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren." Noble words.

Senator Obama needs to explain why he didn't engage his former pastor in a colloquy regarding his developing post-racial ideology and how it conflicts with liberation theology. Liberation theology, as espoused by Reverend Wright, runs counter to his above stated reason for running for president. So one cannot be blamed for having some doubt either about his committment to those noble words or his ability to effect change. If he can't or won't confront his own pastor and congregation and challenge them to move toward those noble words, how can we expect him to challenge and move a country?

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

2008-03-18T22:52:00.001-04:00

The Supreme Court today took up, for the first time since 1939, a Second Amendment case that goes to its heart.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the article I read I'm heartened that some of the justices and Justice Kennedy in particular reads the amendment correctly by seeing the first clause as subordinate to the second.

The crucial question will be to what degree the Court interprets the extent to which the first clause provides the grounds for regulation. But we'll have to wait till June to learn their decision.

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 16, 2008

2008-03-16T10:41:00.001-04:00

I alluded to a potential problem for Senator Obama in my initial piece where I endorsed John McCain. The problem had to do with Obama's church; its warm relations with Louis Farrakhan and the questions it raises about who Barack Obama is. The revelations, if you pardon the pun, of the last few days regarding the good Reverend Jeremiah Wright exacerbates the problem exponentially.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2EVd9WDio0&NR=1

What a bunch of vitriolic extreme left-wing nonsense. Unbelievable. Well, no, actually very believable. There is a strain of African-American "liberation theology", which came out of the civil rights movement, that is extreme. In one of the sermons, the Reverend said the U.S. knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and that the U.S. government was responsible for HIV genocide. This is the kind of rhetoric one would expect from a student of extreme leftist Howard Zinn who wrote the admittedly biased "A Peoples History of the United States. http://hnn.us/articles/1493.html

Michele Norris of NPR on "Meet the Press" today suggested that the "tone" was nothing that you don't hear every Sunday morning in many African-American churches. She also noted that Obama attempted to explain the rhetoric as being the words of "men of ferocious intelligence" who came out of Civil Rights movement. However, Obama also says that words mean things. He therefore has a problem explaining the disconnect between his vision of inclusiveness and his church's anti-American and somewhat racial separationist rhetoric.

David Broder of "The Washington Post", also on "Meet the Press", asked the all important question, "What was it about Rev. Wright that attracted Obama when he had, as a newcomer to Chicago, choice of any number of churches and pastors to go to?" I await an answer.

The rhetoric of the sermons and the enthusiasm with which they were accepted by the congregation help us to understand Michelle Obama's (Barack's wife) more angry and aggressive tone. You may recall the small controversy she created a few weeks ago with her comments about never having been proud of American until now and America being a "mean" country.

Will this be used by Hillary to influence those super delegates about the electability of Mr. Obama? They had better be careful if they do but I'm not sure they'll need to. This furor will raise questions in their minds. The reason for the super delegates in the first place is to make sure they nominate an electable person.

It's a win-win for the non-leftists in this country. If Obama wins the nomination he becomes damaged and hopefully somewhat easier to beat in November. If Hillary manages to get the super delegates to ignore the elected delegate and popular count and vote for her she will create a schism in the Democratic Party that will provide the best chance for winning in November.

The question for those Democratic super delegates is this; which is better, a unified Democratic Party around the compromised Barack Obama or a deeply divided Democratic Party with Hillary Clinton and her baggage. I continue to pray for the latter but anticipate the former.

There is one other possibility. One or the other of these campaigns will take an objective look at the political landscape and being a good liberal, will defer to the other and offer to be number 2 on the ticket, thereby sacrificing for the greater good of their Party.

Logically, this should be Hillary. But if it happens it will be Barack, who will thereby insure his nomination in 2012 when Hillary totally screws up, becomes a one termer and the worse president in history, surpassing even the incompetence of George Bush.

Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 13, 2008

2008-03-06T00:05:00.000-05:00

Watching the Democrats is so much fun this year. God (if there is a God) couldn't have scripted this better. As my boss would say, "grab a bag of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the show."

A few recent points:

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's attack dog called Obama "Ken Starr" for demanding the Clinton Library release contributors to that library; for demanding that the Clintons release their tax records and that they allow the national archives to release her schedule from when she was First Lady. Subliminal; Obama is really kinda like a really bad Republican.
Mrs. Clinton's reference to Obama not being a Muslim with the qualifier "as far as I know". Subliminal; perhaps he IS a Muslim.
Clinton campaign publicises a photograph of Obama in the local garb of some country that implies he is a Muslim. Subliminal; see he really IS a Muslim.
Mrs. Clinton said McCain is more ready to be president than Obama. If this doesn't bring home the point the the Clinton's will say and do ANYTHING (even praise her putative Republican opponent to Obama's detriment) to win, nothing else will. Clintonian needs come before the party's need. Subliminal; Obama is WORSE than a Republican.
Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter says Barack Obama is ahead only because he's black. So the Democratic candidate for Vice President in 1984 has been branded a racist by the media. Political correctness, which has been foisted on the country by the left, comes full circle to hurt the left. And it ain't over yet folks.

It appears, as things stand now, we will have a Federal Government under complete Democratic control come January. So, take some time to enjoy the political season and derive some satisfaction as events unfold, even if feelings of schadenfreude are all there is.

Wayne Allyn Root, Candidate for Libertarian Nomination for President

2008-03-01T13:52:00.000-05:00

I was introduced to Wayne Allyn Root on March 1 at the Georgia Libertarian Party Convention. All I can say is, extremely impressive. I've seen and heard many Libertarian politicians over the years but this the first man who is charismatic enough to bring the simple but unpopular message of libertarianism to the electorate. He actually smiles while delivering a speech. He is engaging and speaks in an extemporaneous manner. I'm sure this was a well rehearsed "stump speech", but nonetheless it was impressively delivered. An interesting factoid is he graduated the same day with the same degree (Political Science) from the same university (Columbia) as Barack Obama.

At the convention he debated a wacko Roman Catholic named Imperato who's raison d'entre is his connections with the Vatican who will "endorse" him for president and thereby deliver 31 million catholics to the Libertarian Party. A genuine nut case (a rich nut case, but a nut case nonetheless) and someone who would normally fit well into the Libertarian Party; a party primarily consisting of Atheists, Deists with a few token Christians and a sprinkling of Eastern rite followers.

Root seems to be sympathetic to the War on Radical Islamist terrorists while acknowledging that the war in Iraq was run incompetently. He sees the existential threat posed by these radical factions, something classic libertarians deny; I give you exhibit A, Ron Paul. Root comes across as an optimistic person. Ron Paul always looks and acts angry. And he gets into the weeds of libertarian philosophy, which is antithetical to the socialist trend we are currently traveling. We need someone like Root who can bring the message in such a way that people will be willing to learn more and assimilate the philosophy into their worldview, a time-consuming educational process.

Wayne Allyn Root deserves to be watched closely. He doesn't have a serious chance this year but he or someone like him is the future of the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party is the only 3rd party that has a chance to break through the current polity. Give him a look-see.

H.L Mencken on The New Deal

2008-02-24T15:44:00.000-05:00

The rhetoric is a bit rough by today's standards but the underlying point has validity.

"The Bad Boy of Baltimore" is a biography of H.L. Mencken by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers. On page 409 of that book is the following:

"By the mid-1930's, thanks to the New Deal, all that self-reliance had changed, prompting Mencken to declare: 'There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them.' Despite the billions spent on an individual, 'he can be lifted transiently but always slips back again.' Thus, the New Deal had been 'the most stupendous digenetic enterprise ever undertaken by man.... We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time. The effects of that doctrine are bound to be disastrous soon or late.

'When someone asked, "And what, Mr. Mencken, would you do about the unemployed?" He looked up with a bland expression. "We could start by taking away their vote," he said, deadpan. Mencken was not surprised when the majority disagreed. "There can be nothing even remotely approaching a rational solution of the fundamental national problems until we face them in a realistic spirit," he later reflected, and that was impossible so long as educated Americans remained responsive "to the Roosevelt buncombe."

Barak Obama: Preemptive Warrior?

2008-02-19T23:48:00.000-05:00

There was something particularly interesting in Senator Obama's Houston speech tonight (Feb. 19, 2008). In it he addressed the responsibilities of the Commander-in Chief. He said, and I quote, "As your Commander-in-Chief my job will be to keep you safe.... And I WILL not hesitate to strike ANY who WOULD do us harm." (emphasis added).

This is very interesting language. The last sentence is the operative one. It is declarative and unambiguously states that he "WILL ... strike ANY who WOULD do us harm." Read that again. I made straight C's in English but "would" is used here to express intent. Said another way, any who INTEND to do us harm, he WILL not hesitiate to STRIKE. Am I crazy or does this not express, or at minimum imply, preemptive action to thwart violence planned (but not initiated) against us? I can't find anything on his website that supports the idea of pre-emptive action but this speech seems to indicate assent. I submitted a question at his website. We'll see if I get a response.

I don't know what this means. Is Obama more of a hawk than he appears? Is he beginning the process of moving his security position more to the middle as he appears more and more likely to get the nomination? I'd say no to the former and probably to the latter. He seems to take positions that are both hawkish and dovish. He wants to begin removing troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008 but wants to increase the size of the army and marines to fight the global war on terror. I've noticed this tendency to be sympathetic to both sides of an issue in several areas while reading parts of his book, "The Audacity of Hope".

One thing is certain, it was obvious from the relatively tepid applause that this was not as well received as the numerous rhetorical flourishes that followed which emphasized the need to end the war and bring our troops home.

I welcome some serious scrutiny of Mr. Obama. I believe we'll see more and more details coming out that will cast some doubt on his worthiness for this high office. But don't look for the mainstream press to bring light to his radical ideas. He will be portrayed by them as mainstream. Look to the blogosphere to break the big news. If big enough, the traditional press will have no choice but to run with it.

Super-delegates, democracy and the Democratic Party

2008-02-10T15:13:00.000-05:00

The Democratic Party has a problem that’s getting quite a bit of press. It’s the super-delegate problem. It was a rule begun in 1981 for the purpose of precluding some maverick politician with absolutely NO CHANCE of winning the general election from getting the nomination. The immediate irony is this rule may preclude a black politician with EVERY CHANCE of winning the election, from winning. But, besides irony, this rule reveals a deep hypocrisy.

The Democratic Party; the name of course comes from, of course, democracy. The last three definitions in Merriam-Websters dictionary are particularly enlightening.

3 : capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic Party in the United States *from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts*
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

In the run for the Democratic nomination for president two thousand twenty-five delegates are needed to win out of a total 4049. Nineteen percent or 796 are “super-delegates”, delegates who can switch their vote at any time. They are non-elected delegates and come from the elite of the party, who can basically usurp the democratic election of a nominee they don’t like. You may recall George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. A socialist, George Orwell wrote this as a critique of Communism, which he despised. In there is a famous quote about some of the animals being “more equal than others”. That’s basically what we have here.

One will immediately see the contradiction between definitions 4 and 5 above and this policy of the Democratic Party. It is an abrogation of both definitions. It potentially takes away power from the “common people” of the party because they can’t be trusted and puts final control in the hands of the “ruling class”, the oligarchy of the party, if you will.

This is very consistent with implied leftist dogma that elites should be in control because they know what’s best for everyone. Democracy is a means to power, but they take care to control against the passions of the hoi polloi that could deny them their ultimate goal. I hasten to add that controlling the passions of the mob is also a very small r republican idea. It is the basis of a republican form of government. But Democrats don’t like republicanism. They believe in the popular vote, they believe in unbridled democracy albeit with constitutional protections of minority rights. They try to usurp federalism at every turn with legislation that attempts to reduce the power of the individual states.

They were very upset in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote. Their take was the will of the people had been superseded by an anachronistic elitist system. This super-delegate scheme is basically a scaled down version of the same idea, except worse, these people aren’t even elected. According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer “all 398 members of the Democratic National Committee are super-delegates. So, too, is every Democrat in the House and Senate, as well as every Democratic governor.”

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080210_Democrats_delegate_dilemma.html

They may have avoided this train wreck if they had adopted a winner-take-all approach to each state primary, but I guess they didn't want any of the delegates to FEEL BAD about not getting ANY votes so they put in place a system of proportional vote allocation. In the end the Republicans, who used a winner-take-all approach, ended up with a more democratic scheme than the Democrats.

This whole situation is somewhat metaphorical for what one should expect from the Democrats if and when they attain complete control of the federal government; a complicated mess.

Mitt Romney: Redeemed

2008-02-07T23:13:00.000-05:00

The news today that Mitt Romney has bowed out of the race took me by surprise. I've never been a Romney fan for many reasons. My opposition to him has been viscerial. I just don't trust him. The only political person to whom I have a more negative reaction is Hillary. And for some reason, the fact that neither of those 5 good-looking healthy young sons of his has found his way into the military I find troublesome. One of my reasons, not mentioned in my previous post, for supporting John McCain is he has skin in the game. He has 2 sons in the military.

But Mitt's resignation from the presidential campaign is honorable and I have more respect for him now. What he did, as he said in his speech, was good for the country and good for the Republican Party. It leaves McCain with more time to unify the party for what will be the fight of its life against whomever gets the Democratic nod.

I also think it is good politics for Mitt. Should McCain fail this November and he probably will, especially if Barak Obama gets the nomination, Mitt will be in excellent position to be the Republican nominee in 2012.

Thank you, Mitt. You've done an honorable thing.

A Compromise; John McCain for President

2008-01-29T21:25:00.000-05:00

This is probably the most exciting political year in many decades. We have a Republican party in disarray and a Democratic party that will nominate either the first woman or the first African-American for President of the United States; the dynamics of which is causing a bit of disarray in that party as well. More on that later. In case you haven't noticed, this is a Democratic year and one of these two will likely become president.

I have strong libertarian leanings. As a libertarian my preference is for less government and more individual responsibility for oneself and others. But I'm not a purest. I come to my own conclusions and prefer to think for myself and in the process sometimes compromise those principles.

Divided government is good. By divided government I mean that we, particularly those of us who pay the lion’s share of the taxes, are better off when the executive and legislative branches are not under the control of the same political party. I thought the Republican Party could be trusted to hold all the reins of power, but that has been proven empirically to NOT be the case. The federal budget is approaching $3 trillion per year. In 1998 it was less than $2 trillion.

It is generally accepted that the next Congress will remain in Democratic hands. There's little hope the Republicans can hold onto the numbers they currently have. The Democrats will probably expand their majorities by some measure in both houses. In the House it's 232 versus 199. In the Senate it's a tie. Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats making an effective 51 to 49 majority. The Democrat probably won't get the 60 vote majority needed to automatically get cloture on any measure but with help of a few moderate Republicans they will.

It therefore becomes extremely important for a Republican to be elected president. Only a fiscally conservative Republican who believes there is an existential threat from radical Islamists would have the ability to provide some measure of checks and balances to a Democratic Congress. Senator John McCain isn't a libertarian; Congressman Ron Paul is, but Paul's ability to get 5% of the vote, while pretty good for a libertarian, ain't quite gonna cut it. And while I can make a case for why Paul's stand on the war, which is diametrically opposed to McCains, could also be a good thing in the long run, he still doesn't have a chance to win, so why bother. We have to be realistic in these things and while McCain has a nasty habit of making nice-nice with Democrats, we have to make a logical, reasoned decision for whom to vote in the primary. With the fiscal issues facing this country, divided government is vitally important and he's our only chance.

John McCain can get the votes of Independents. He proved that in New Hampshire. The vote in Florida will be crucial. If he can win there, where ONLY Republicans can vote in the primary it will indicate that the mainstream Republican base is coming to the same conclusion.

And John McCain is without question the only Republican who can beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. He would have an easier time beating Hillary. Hillary’s nomination will motivate a dispirited and dismayed Republican Party. Her baggage is well known. But should Hillary get the nomination, even after having denied the nomination to the first Black man who could realistically win the office, she will still be able to rally and unite the Democratic Party. The Democrats are motivated and smell blood. Their desire for divided government dissipated the day after the election in November of 2006. They desperately want both legislative and executive power. The Reagan Democrats are fed up with George Bush as are ALL the Independents and some minority of Republicans. Only someone like John McCain, who can attract those Independents and Reagan Democrats along with anti-Hillary Republicans, can bring together a coalition that can win in November.

Barack Obama’s nomination would be a bit more problematic. But before we get into that, I can't help a divergence to discuss the current fight between the Clintons and Obama. This is simply too delicious. I've been collecting the op-eds from the NY Times columnists, Gail Collins, Maureen Down and Bob Herbert. Since Jan.1, they've collectively written 7 anti-Clinton columns. This group is NOT part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy". The recent columns have been critical of the Clintons sliming of Senator Obama. I think the Democrats are coming to understand what people on the Right have known all along. The Clintons will stop at nothing to gain power. Using underhanded tactics to beat Republicans is one thing, using such unsavory tactics to deny the presidency to the first legitimate Black politician who can win white votes in Iowa; that's another thing altogether. The other interesting thing about this internecine fight is watching the Left hoisted by their own petard. Some have argued that the Obama’s African-American supporters are being a bit too sensitive about these attacks. "Politics ain't beanbag" as the former Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neil used to say. Well, if the African-American community is in fact being too sensitive, could it be that the victim mentality that Bill Cosby has so eloquently spoken of, is partly to blame? Would it be over the top to suggest that this sense of victim-hood was, to the extent it's a factor, exacerbated by, the Great Society programs of the Democratic Party? Just a thought.

But back to Obama and McCain. If McCain needs independent voters to beat Hillary, he'll need them just as much, if not more, to beat Senator Obama. Mr. Obama has a gift of oratory that Mrs. Clinton doesn't possess. A significant theme in his speeches is his desire to bring the country together; black and white; left and right. And this resonates with White American because it wants very much to get past its racial past. What better way to prove to ourselves and the world that we have become a truly ecumenical society and have overcome our racial divide than to elect the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas? I listened to his speech the weekend of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. I have to admit I became emotionally mesmerized. But Mr. Obama is not without his baggage. He truly lacks experience and it is somewhat difficult to understand what he really believes. For example, his desire to bring the country together when juxtaposed next to his membership in a church that stresses African nationalism and presents awards to Louis Farrakan brings questions as to his true beliefs, assuming they will be asked; which brings up the delicate question of the strategy the Republicans would use against him. If you think the Clintons are getting heat for criticizing Obama and bringing race into the political equation, justified or not, just imagine what will happen to the Republicans.

The bottom line is both Clinton and Obama are of the same political cloth. With control of the legislature and the executive, they will pass new entitlements (such as universal health-care) and institute tax policies that are antithetical to positive economic growth and which will surely lead to increased government debt and probably economic malaise, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Seventies.

John McCain is the only one who can save us.