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.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Economic Consequences of THE BILL
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.
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.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
A Libetarian Awakening??
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.
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.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Scott Brown and Freedom
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.
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.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
In God we Trust
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.
.
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.
.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
From an email to my sister...
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.
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.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
President Obama and bowing
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
