Play Nice

"Treat people kindly but ideas harshly."

In a recent article by Sandy Ikeda on The Freeman web site, he addresses Friedrich Hayek’s approach in opposing socialism in the book Road to Serfdom.  Ikeda points out that by dedicating his book "To the Socialists of All Parties," Hayek was not mocking or assuming his intellectual opponents "were stupid or evil," but that they were "ignorant and mistaken" and there were "things that they didn't know."  In other words, Hayek assumed that his opponents were well-meaning, but misinformed.  He saw it as his job to teach them to think properly.

Ikeda brings this approach into focus for the current political environment:

"In a world of heated ideological differences and partisan political conflict, it’s tempting to paint our opponents as stupid and evil, as calculating opportunists. Again, often they are, and from their point of view often so are we. We need to get past that. We need to keep learning."

"Learning, though, means exposing yourself to ideas that you find strange, perhaps even repugnant at first. Even if we end up rejecting them, we will, having been able to correctly state the opposite case, have a better idea why we reject them. Learning through personal interactions requires dialogue, and genuine dialogue between grownups who disagree cannot begin with name-calling and smirking cynicism. No. Genuine dialogue means treating our ideological opponents as people of goodwill with the hope that they will treat us the same way. Only then can we learn and grow."

"As a young libertarian scholar recently summed it up, 'Treat people kindly but ideas harshly.' Exactly!"

I agree with this approach. I don't believe, however, that it requires compromise of your principles. I also believe that if it applies to your opponents, it should apply that much more to your friends.  The current Republican primary is a case in point.

In a primary, each candidate for nomination works very hard to depict themselves as the the best choice to represent the views of the voters in their party in the general election.  While each candidate is sure that they are the best choice, only one candidate will be nominated...no matter how many run for office.  Knowing this going into the process, I think all of a party's candidates should fight hard for nomination but also plan for what happens if they don't win.  Not being nominated, does not necessarily mean that a candidate has "lost."  They can still win support for their ideas and make a positive impact on the direction of the party and the country.  But, too often, this is not that happens.

"Learning, though, means exposing yourself to ideas that you find strange, perhaps even repugnant at first."

I don't think any of the current crop of Republican candidates are perfect and without fault.  I do, however, believe that any of them would be immeasurably better than Obama.  And, like him or dislike him, Newt Gingrich had the right idea when he said that he would not attack his fellow Republicans because the real opponent was Barack Obama.

What I am seeing now, as the primary season grows shorter, is the knives coming out between  Republicans while the Democrats sit back and laugh.  The Republican Party encompasses a range of people from the  establishment to the libertarian...personified in this election cycle in Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, with everyone else somewhere in between.  And somewhere in between is where I stand, though I'm much closer to the libertarian end of the scale than the establishment end.  The supporters of establishment end call Ron Paul fringe and crazy when it comes to foreign policy.  The libertarians say that Mitt Romney is bought and paid for shill of the big banks.  Libertarians say they can't support the Establishment candidates...Establishment begs the libertarians not to go third party.  None of it is helpful...it only serves to tear down...not build up.

Neither side should compromise their convictions, but, they should plan for what happens next.  If Ron Paul wins, how do the other candidates have an influence to temper what they see as isolationist foreign policy?  How do they keep their supporters from sitting out the election and handing Obama a second term?

If Mitt Romney wins, how do the libertarians make sure that their ideas of limited government and non-interventionism continue to be heard.  How do they keep their supporters from going to a third party and, once again, handing Obama the win?

First, all of the name calling and muck-raking has to stop among Republican supporters.  Then, they need to deal honestly and openly with their ideas and issues.  Many in the party believe that Paul has great ideas when it comes to the fiscal operations of government.  It is widely agreed that Romney brings real-world business experience and understanding to the table.  Gingrich has a good grasp of government's historical role.  Perry and Huntsman have good executive experience  as governors of States that are doing comparability well.  Santorum and Bachman have track records of tirelessly working for conservative principles in Congress.  While no candidate is perfect for every voter in the party, they all have their strong points.

We must then find our common ground and stand united.  There will plenty of time to continue the discussion after Obama is defeated...

Each candidate should strongly promote their views and say why they may disagree with the views of their fellow candidates.  But, lets all look to the good of the country and plan for what happens next...once one candidate is chosen.  We must then find our common ground and stand united.  There will plenty of time to continue the discussion after Obama is defeated...if we have not made enemies out of each other in the process.

For the good of our republic...for the future of our children...let's play nice with each other and defeat the failed ideas and policies of the Left.

Serfdom? ... Or Worse?

This video by Stefan Molyneaux of Freedomain Radio puts our national debt and the oligarchical Federal Government in grim focus.  It asks the important question, "Where is your government going to get the money to pay off its creditors?"  The answer is chilling..."Governments have only one asset that they can use as collateral. Your leaders are selling you."



For text of video, CLICK HERE.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Once again, Andrew Klavan has hit the nail on the head.  In this short animated video, he shows that both the Wall Street Occupiers and the Wall Street Crony Capitalists want, in effect, the same thing...taxpayers' money.   Both want the government to subsidize them, and for that subsidy, they will give all power to government...which is what the politicians want.  So, everybody's happy...right?  Well, everybody except the vast middle class, the honest entrepreneurs, those of us who pay the taxes.

Both are evil...both must be stopped.

Artificial Stars

Meet Aimi Eguchi, member of the popular Japanese band AKB 48. Cute girl, right? Well...cute, yes, but she's not a girl...not a real girl anyway.  In their Odd News section, the United Press International (UPI) reported that Aimi "was recently revealed to the public as computer generated."  That's right she is CGI (see Aimi on YouTube).

She is not the first "artificial star" in Japan, however.  Aimi "joins the company of Hatsune Miku, a pop singer who is actually a computer-generated cartoon with a realistic voice synthesized using Yamaha's Vocaloid program."  And, believe it or not, "Miku regularly sells out 'live' concerts featuring 3-D holographic images of the singer performing on stage."

 The closest thing we've seen to this in the past is lip-syncing groups (remember Milli Vanilli) or presidential politics.  And yes, it would not surprise me if in the not too distant future, that we get a CGI Presidential candidate.  It seems that this is what the voting public really wants.  As a whole we seem to want the perfect, artificial candidate...not real statesmen who have real convictions and ideas...along with real human flaws.  We want perfect hair, perfect soundbites and to be made to feel good about ourselves.  We have been building an image of the perfect candidate since the television era began.

This trend of image over substance began with the very first televised Presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon.  According to an article on the Museum of Broadcast Communications (MBC) web site, "In August, Nixon had seriously injured his knee and spent two weeks in the hospital. By the time of the first debate he was still twenty pounds underweight, his pallor still poor. He arrived at the debate in an ill-fitting shirt, and refused make-up to improve his color and lighten his perpetual '5:00 o'clock shadow.' Kennedy, by contrast, had spent early September campaigning in California. He was tan and confident and well-rested. 'I had never seen him looking so fit,' Nixon later wrote."  But, what about the essence of the debate?  Once again, from the MBC article, "In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin."

This first debate has been studied and studied over the decades.  Everybody knows that you don't want to be like Nixon on a televised debate...you want to be like Kennedy...regardless of substance.  John F. Kennedy's image, though, was not only formed by the debate, but also through endless photo-ops, interviews and fawning magazine articles.  From the very beginning of his political career, the image of Camelot was carefully crafted step-by-step.  This also has been studied and emulated by politicians.

Today we know that almost everything about the Kennedy mystique was indeed mist...fog and mirrors, if you will.  The virile, athletic young man we saw in the "home videos" was actually nearly incapacitated a lot of the time from a back injury suffered during WWII.  He couldn't function without almost constant pain killers.  The loving family man turned out to be womanizing, serial adulterer.  And, the white knight from Camelot turned out to have tarnished armor through his association with organized crime figures.  But, he was pretty...not that Nixon turned out to be a gem himself.

Since that time, politics have become almost completely about image.  High powered image consultants, spin-meisters and media moguls are all employed to make sure a candidate's image is polished to a clean, shining luster.  In a culture that is more concerned with the latest celebrity divorce or rehab story...who know more about the plot of the hot "reality show" than the operation of their government...this is now the criteria on which we base the election to the most powerful office in the world.  Who looked best...who had the best comeback...who seemed the most concerned?

Images that can be so easily crafted, can just as easily be destroyed. There are hundreds of press vultures circling out there for a slip of the tongue, or an unsubstantiated accusation to swoop down and feed on the carcass of another dead or dying candidacy.  With the number of cameras focused on the candidates every day and the circus that is the presidential debates, candidates are almost assured to make a faux pas, a misstatement or just exhibit mental flatulence.  Let's be honest, after the hours and weeks and months on the campaign trail, the candidates get tired.  They have to keep an enormous amount of information on the tips of their tongues.  They are going to slip.  Rick Perry forgetting a department of government in the middle of a televised debate is no more an indication that he is stupid, than Barack Obama's statement that he was in 57 states during his campaign makes him a moron.  But...The vultures care little for reality...they only smell death.

This all unfortunately leaves the spin machines and media with a lot of power in picking our leaders. We don't take the time to really understand the issues. We don't really find out which candidates offer the best ideas. We just listen to the edited, 30-second sound-bites and judge their image. Barack Obama came to the office with no resume...with very questionable associations. In the prologue of his own book he wrote, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He also says "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete."  But he had an unbelievably adept media spin machine.  Once he got in office and began to show his real stripes, many voters found themselves with a bad case of "buyers remorse."

Where does this leave us?  The depth of statesmanship has given way to plastic veneers.  Ideas and values are supplanted by quips and comebacks.  We don't even know what government's role should be...and don't care, as long as we can still afford our $4 cup of coffee.  

Will we wake up?  Will we take control of our own destinies?  Or will we just continue to choose "artificial stars" to represent us?  Will we pick leaders in the future?  Or will it be...Max Headroom for President!

The Value of Higher Education

There was an excellent column in the Washington Examiner recently by Gene Harlan Reynolds that discusses the higher education"bubble" that has been building over the last few decades.  Just as with the housing bubble, college education has become "an overpriced good, propped up by cheap government-subsidized credit, luring borrowers and lenders alike into a potentially disastrous mess."

This is a subject I have been talking about for a long time.  With tuition increasing at more than two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation over the years (1), we have to ask ourselves when it will stop.  Additionally, we have to ask what it is we're paying for and if it's all worth it.  Especially when the real-world value of that education is dwindling, as reported in a NY Times article: "...a college degree is no longer the guarantor of a middle-class existence. Until the early 1970s, less than 11 percent of the adult population graduated from college, and most of them could get a decent job. Today nearly a third have college degrees, and a higher percentage of them graduated from nonelite schools. A bachelor’s degree on its own no longer conveys intelligence and capability."

I have particular interest in this subject on two fronts...my own educational history, and the fact that I am now paying for my son to go through an engineering degree program, probably/hopefully culminating in a master's degree.

As for my own story, my parents had no money to send me to college. Neither of them were very well educated themselves. When my father graduated high school, it was the very intelligent, or privileged who ever got to go to college. At that time, with a high school diploma and some good skills, a person could do okay for themselves...maybe even some low to mid-level management position.

By the time I was in high school, the game had changed. You now needed some additional schooling to obtain the same kind of life-style. I tried college for a year, but changed my major 3 times in that year and was getting ready to change it again. I was also the one going into debt to finance the education. I could not justify growing the debt even more if I had no idea of what I was going to do, so I dropped out. About a year latter, I enrolled in a two-year electronic technology program at a local technical school...which I completed. I also took additional college-level courses over the years, but never did get a bachelor's degree.

One of the things I really appreciated about my tech school program was that there were no "useless filler" classes, as I referred to them. I was there to learn electronic technology, and that's all we studied, along with applicable mathematics. There were no history, or psychology classes...no basket weaving or art appreciation...just technology. Now, don't get me wrong, I think a person needs to know how to communicate well to succeed in business. That is why I took two writing classes in my first year at college and a technical writing class later at another college. But this really should be taught in high school, if you ask me.

With my measly little tech school diploma, I have traveled to Europe where I sat in a room of master's degree and PhD  engineers and gave them advice on how to design their product...which they had  largely followed when I checked back a year later.  I have been a regional engineering manager for a large telecommunications company.  And, I currently work in a position where many of my peers have bachelor and master's degrees in engineering...and by all accounts, I'm doing well without such degrees.

What I have found over the years is that a degree does not impart intelligence or ability.  Would Bill Gates or Michael Dell be even more successful if they had just stayed in college instead of starting their businesses?  I doubt it.  Yes, there are good reasons for education to train you for a chosen field...yes, good language skills are essential, but, are all the extra classes that are packed into a degree program in the name of a "well rounded" education...the useless fillers...necessary, or even useful?  

My lack of a degree has not undermined my abilities, though it has restricted my opportunities.  And that is the question, should a lack of a piece of paper stating that I completed a course of study be the major requirement for success and promotion?  It wasn't a diploma that made the Scarecrow smart, just as Reynolds points out that because "professional basketball players have expensive sneakers...it's not the shoes that make them good at dunking."  And a degree, "on its own no longer conveys intelligence and capability."  If we're honest with ourselves, it never really did.

Now, with a kid of my own in college, I am living the pain of years of  educational hyper-inflation.  We are happy to be able to provide him with an opportunity that I was never given,  to get his engineering degree.  He has worked hard all throughout his schooling.  He is very intelligent and a great student...better than his old man ever was.  But, I'm glad I only have one child to put through college.

Many families are not fortunate enough to be able to provide for their child's college as we have. What this means is that more and more students are forced to begin their working life with huge education debts, and less prospects for good paying jobs. And, just as with the housing bubble, more and more of these students are defaulting on their debt.

I have advocated for rethinking our higher-education system in this country for years.  But now, I think, we are soon to be forced into such a reevaluation.  Colleges and universities are going to have to curb their spending and control their costs.  No longer can they continue to build huge, elaborate monuments to their magnificence.  A little more practicality in their building designs will be required, if any expansion is needed at all.  They also cannot continue to subsidize programs with little or no real-world applications and very few students.  Any course who's title ends in "Studies" needs to be seriously assessed...and probably most eliminated.

Not only do the institutions of higher learning need to be questioned, but businesses also have an important role to play.  If corporate America did not place such a high, artificial premium on the degrees designed by academia, colleges and universities could not charge such an artificially high price for their product.  The business community needs to reevaluate their requirements for employment and promotion.  What education is truly needed for an employee to perform their job?  As I have seen in technology companies, most jobs, unless they are high-level design or theoretical positions, do not really require four or six year degrees.  And, an MBA certainly should not be a prerequisite for positions in management...don't even get me started on that.

The final part of the puzzle is us...families with children.  We need to realize that college is not necessarily right for all kids.  Technical and trade schools are a great choice for many.  We are losing skilled trades people in this country.  The demand for these trades will grow in the next decades.  As Reynolds states in his column, "We need people who can make things, and it's harder to outsource a plumbing or welding job to somebody in Bangalore.  Of course, the thing about skilled trades is that they require skill.  Even with training, not everyone makes a good welder or machinist any more than just anyone can become a doctor or lawyer."

But, one way or another, the change must happen.  The bubble is about to burst.  Government can no longer afford to subsidize the current system.  The game is changing...again.

(1) Source: InflationData.com - Sky Rocketing College Costs, 10/19/2011

The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

Trigger and Freewheel - October 17, 2011

The search for the elusive Perpetual Motion Machine has persisted through history.  Such an apparatus could continue to run by it's own power once it was started, without the requirement of any additional outside energy.  Though many have claimed that they have invented such an apparatus over the centuries, it is not possible.  If it were, we would all be driving electric cars that charge themselves as they travel along the road.

I won't go into the detailed physics about why Perpetual Motion is not possible, because frankly, I'm not a physicist and don't play one on the Internet.  If you want the details, I'm sure you can find more than you want to know from a quick search on your favorite search engine.  But, for a simplistic view of the subject, let's look a the diagram below which provides a classic depiction of a Perpetual Motion Machine.  The idea here is that once the center wheel is started spinning in a clockwise direction, the arms attached to the wheel will swing out and the force of the weights attached at the ends will force the wheel to continue to move.  As the wheel turns, new arms will continue to swing out and drive the wheel.  Sounds plausible...if you only think about it for about 30 seconds.  The problem is that the force of the weights going IN must be overcome coming back OUT as they are dragged back up the other side.  Add the friction of the axle and other issues, and the machine eventually comes to a halt if no additional energy is used to keep it going.

"Okay," you say, "how does that apply to Keynesian economics?"  Well, let's look at this machine as the economy.  Politicians who extol the virtues of Keynesian-based monetary policy believe, among other things, that they can boost the economy by adding so-called Stimulus money into the economy.  But, they forget that government does not create the wealth that they put IN to the machine at the top of the cycle, they only take it OUT of the economy in the form of taxes, fees and tariffs.  Add the frictional drag from the bloated bureaucracy of the government itself, and the wheel soon slows and comes again to a stop.

The government solution to the slowing wheel is to add more Stimulus going IN...but where do they get the money?  Well, they can raise taxes...but the public will only stand for so much of that before they revolt and vote them from office.  So, for the past several decades, they have hid their source and done something even worse...they have borrowed the money.  This new borrowed money comes with the added frictional drag of interest.  Coming back OUT, the machine not only have to support the continued turning of the wheel and the drag of bureaucracy, but now the added debt service.  So any new government Stimulus has less and less of a positive effect on the motion of the economic machine.

Now I hear you saying, "How is that any different from the so-called Free Enterprise System?"  A very good question...you are a smart one.  While government only pulls wealth out of the economy, or borrows it, the Free Enterprise System creates new wealth.  This new wealth is created by taking the raw materials of business and, through ingenuity and hard work, turns them into products and services that are more valuable than their component parts.  This new wealth is the on-going new energy that the Free Market adds IN to the system to keep the machine turning.  Companies who create wealth have a vested interest in reducing the drag so they can take more profit OUT of the machine.  This profit allows their companies to grow and increase the new wealth they can add IN again.

Only the Free Enterprise System has demonstrated the on-going ability to continue to add the needed new energy to keep the economic wheel turning.  The failures of the economy have never been failures of Free Enterprise, but rather the failures of government.  When government adds drag to the machine through higher taxes or unreasonable regulation, it slows the wheel and reduces the profit companies can take OUT...thus reducing the new wealth they can add back IN. 

Yes, this is a simplistic analogy, but an accurate one.  The Keynesian models have been debunked over and over through the years.  One of the shining examples that Keynesians have held up as the success of their policies, FDR's New Deal, has come under scrutiny in recent years.  In fact, economists from UCLA have recently released the results of a four-year study of the FDR policies and their effect on the Great Depression.  Rather than saving us from the Great Depression, as Keynesians have always claimed, UCLA research found that  while the economy had been "poised for a beautiful recovery," that recovery was "stalled" by FDR's "misguided policies."  The study concludes that the FDR actions "thwarted economic recovery for seven long years."  One of the study's authors, Harold L. Cole, stated that their "work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Bringing things up to the present, The Washington Times reported that "The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy."  So, since this was basically a failure, Obama wants to do more of the same...Typical.

There is no such thing as a Perpetual Motion Machine...or a successful government-driven economy.  Any one who believes there is, are a lot like the spoiled teenager in the comic at the top of the page who thinks it works as long as "someone" continues to pay the bill.

The More Things Change...

In October of 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a televised speech entitled A Time For Choosing in support of then Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater.  In this speech he outlines  differences between the liberals and conservatives.  He also lays out some of the problems the country faced at that time.

"Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value."

Sound familiar?  It should, but today, the numbers are even worse.  Reagan rejected the liberal stance that  the solution to the problems was a larger, more centralized government.

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?  But the reverse is true."

Watch the video of this amazing speech to see how much is the same as it was at that time.  Notice that the stakes are the same. "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

A few more great quotes from the speech:

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear."

"Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

Useful Occupy Idiots

Beautiful example of the useful idiots at the Occupy Wall Street mob.  No logic, no answers...just repeating the standard talking points.  Good job, Mr. Schiff.

Should Israel Be Returned to the...Turks?

There is a lot of discussion going on about what America's role should be in the so-called Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.  Are the Palestinians entitled to the land that is currently Israel because they were there before 1948 when it was given to the Jews by the United Nations?

Well, if that is the criteria, maybe we should give it to the Turks.  Before the most recent incarnation of the Israeli nation, the land of Palestine was controlled by the British, as part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. This was put in place after World War I which saw the defeat of, among others, the Ottoman Empire...the Turks.  This land had been part of the Ottoman Empire since about 1517.  So, I would say that if anyone has claim to Israel, it would be the Turks, wouldn't you?

The vast majority of the land under the Mandate, as well as that under French control, were given to Arab peoples. Only a very small portion was given to the Jews...only about 1/6th of one percent of the land in the Middle East.

Before this, though, it was the Turks who controlled and owned this region.  Of course, before that, it was the Mamluks, the Arabs, the Persians and the Byzantines who controlled the land.  Oh, then before that there were the Romans...who gave the region the name of Palestine after the biblical enemies of the Jews, the Philistines...who were not Arab.  And, if you go back a little further, it was the land of...the Jews.

And, who really are the Palestinians?  There was historically never a country, tribe or people known as the Palestinians.  These, really were just Arabs who lived in the region who were not welcomed into the other Arab lands.  Some refer to them as the rabble or outcasts of the Arab world.  From a control or ownership standpoint, they really have no strong claim on the land.

So, where does this leave us? Who should get Israel?  The current occupants, the so-called Palestinians?  Should we give it back to the Turks maybe?  Well, in my opinion, it is the current occupants who own it.  Look, I am no Zionist.  While I am a christian, I do not believe that the Jews have some kind of divine right to the land.  I believe that God gave it to them once, but then, through disobedience, they lost it. I am, however, a supporter of Israel in the same way as I am a supporter of Great Britain, or Germany, or Japan.  They are friends and allies.

Every country and region in the world has been shaped over the centuries by wars, conquerors and political agreements of all sorts.  At one time most of Europe was controlled by the Roman Empire...then came the Normans, Vandals, Saxons, etc., etc.   How far do we have to go back in time to redress the perceived wrongs of the past? Hopefully we can become more and more "civilized" in our dealings among nations as time passes, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope.  But, until then, we need to face the facts.  We all are a product of our history, good or bad.  We are where we are today, and we must align with our friends in good times and bad for all of our mutual safety.  If we abandon friends due to international peer pressure or  growing internal political struggles, we will be left with no friends because we will not be a trustworthy ally.

Israel is our only true and stable friend in a region filled with our sworn enemies.  We must support them.

What's All The Fuss With The Fed?

There are good reasons why twice in the history of our country central banks were dismantled.  Through most of our history, Americans have been very wary of large banks and their control on government.  This short video clip of G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island, gives some of the background on the founding of the Federal Reserve.

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”  ~ 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The 10th Amendment has had renewed interest in recent times.  More and more people are rediscovering the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government and realizing that it has greatly over-stepped it's bounds.  Many are looking to this amendment as a remedy, believing that it is the key to reining in the out-of-control Federal leviathan.

The 10th Amendment, however, has no power if there is no one to enforce it.  It has been in place since the beginning of our constitutional republic, but the Federal government has not restrained itself within these very clear bounds.  Even though there are checks and balances built between the branches of the central government, the trend has been to gather more and more "undelegated" power to itself.  Expecting anything else would be naive and akin to letting the fox guard the hen house.

The founders were in no way naive on this point.  This is why they designed a system where by the States were to provide the major check on the power of the Federal government.  Over and over again, during the Constitutional Convention, the State ratifying conventions, The Federalist Papers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the States were declared to be sovereign bodies who gave some very limited and narrow power to the central government to represent the federation of States in the dealings with the outside world.  The central, or Federal, government was in no way superior to the States.  The Constitution was, in effect, a contract defining how the States would be represented to the world,  guidelines for how they would interact with each other, and an agreed upon set of basic human rights to be held inviolate among all of the citizens of the Federation.  The signatories of this contract were the States themselves, as represented by their legislatures.

In this spirit, U. S. Senators were to be appointed by the State legislatures to act as "ambassadors of the states," as Fisher Ames, Massachusetts Constitutional convention delegate, referred to them.  They were to "be vigilant in supporting [the states'] rights against infringement by legislative or executive of the United States," according to Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman.  The Senate, though was only one house of the Congress.  The House of Representatives, sometimes referred to as "The People's House" was to be the more direct voice of the citizens of the States.  These two houses of Congress were deliberately designed to represent "opposite and rival interests" to temper the will of the people against the "tyranny of the majority," and to constrain the power of the government.

But, in 1913 the very essence of our carefully-crafted form of government was dealt a near fatal blow with the  ratification of the 17th Amendment.  State legislatures were removed from the process of choosing U.S. Senators, and therefore lost any control of this body.  This, in effect, removed the States check on the Federal government's power.  Everything was different after this.  From this point on, the Federal government began a steady march toward more and more centralized power.

The reasons given for the need for the 17th Amendment were very populist sounding.  They said that the State legislatures were corrupt and were playing politics with the appointment of Senators.   They said that special interests were having unseemly influence on the Senate.  They said that "The People" should have a more direct voice in the choice of Senators.  This all sounded good, and right to many at the time, but, C. H. Hoebeke, author of The Road to Mass Democracy points out that"

"In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate also has participated in lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman."

The Federal government has failed to exercise real restraint on it's own power.  Even if the reasons given at the time for the 17th amendment were valid, and there is a lot of evidence they were not, the Amendment has been a failure, as Hoebeke points out above.  The States were effectively neutered by this amendment, undermining the original design of our founders.

Our system of government, as originally designed, worked much better before the Amendment, as Todd J. Zywicki, Law Professor from George Mason University, points out.

"In preserving federalism and bicameralism, the Senate did an extraordinary job before 1913. Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government remained small and special-interest legislation was limited. The activity of the federal government was largely confined to the provision of 'public goods' such as defense and international relations."

Zywicki believes that passage of the 17th Amendment "was primarily a rebellion of emerging special interests against federalism and bicameralism, which restrained the ability of the federal government to produce legislation favorable to those interests. Changing the method of electing senators changed the rules of the game for seeking favorable legislation from the federal government, fostering the massive expansion of the federal government in the twentieth century." In other words, rather than removing the influence of special interests, it strengthen them by making it easier to lobby one small group of 100 Senators, rather than the legislatures of 50 States.

And, the result is very well stated by Thomas J. DiLorenzo in hid book, Hamilton's Curse:

"Today states are the slaves to federal 'mandates.'  They beg for federal dollars to finance the seemingly unlimited regulatory mandates emanating from Washington, D.C., covering how fast citizens may drive, when and how much alchol they may consume, how to treat drinking water, who may own firearms and where they may use them, and an endless stream of nanny-state harassment.  When a state does protest an 'unfair' and burdensome federal mandate, it is usually quickly disciplined by the mere threat of diminished federal subsidies for the politicians' favorite pork-barrel programs, usually for road construction."

So, if we are to see a return to our founding principles...if the 10th Amendment is ever to have a chance to be enforced, we must restore the rightful role of the States.  We must return to a decentralized form of power with the proper checks and balances in place.

We must repeal the 17th Amendment!

The National Debt in Perspective

There's been a lot of discussion about the national debt recently.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about the severity of the problem and the solutions that should be used.  The root cause, though, seems to be very clear… government is spending more that it brings in.

The current debt level is more than $14 Trillion.  This is a very…very large number. That’s fourteen followed by 12 zeros.  But, let’s add a little more perspective.  $14 Trillion is more than $47,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country, based on the most recent U.S Census data. According to numbers from the U. S. Treasury, this would be more than $131,000 for every US taxpayer. If the government stopped spending any other money, and put $100 Million-a-day toward paying off the debt, it would take more than 384 years. This doesn't even consider interest payments...You do the math.

In 2010, The US government spent more than $413 Billion on interest payments alone. This is more than was spent on The Department of Health and Human Services…The Departments of Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce…hold on, I’m almost done…The Department of Treasury, Department of Labor and the Small Business Administration …COMBINED. Just to service current debt. And, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the interest payments on the debt are projected to be $1.1 Trillion a year by 2021, a mere 10 years from now.

If the government stopped spending any other money, and put $100 Million-a-day toward paying off the debt, it would take more than 384 years.

Many people say that the amount of debt, in dollars, is not what’s important, but rather what percentage of the over-all economy, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it represents. Even from this perspective, though,  the debt is high. At nearly 70% of the US GDP, the debt is at its highest level since World War II. Some current projections have the debt exceeding 100% GDP by around 2025.

Regardless of your view on the seriousness of the debt...or whether you believe that the it is necessary or not...the root cause is simply that the government is spending more money than it is receiving. The difference between revenues and outlays is known as the deficit. To make up for this deficit, the US borrows money every year from many different sources, including foreign countries like China. As historian and economist, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. says in his book Rollback, "Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower."

Government spending has been on an upward trajectory for many years…through Republican and Democratic control. While median household income has increased 27% (in inflation adjusted dollars) from 1970 to 2009, government spending increased 299% during the same time period. In 2011, the government is expected to take in about $2.15 Trillion in revenues while spending $3.77 Trillion. This is a deficit of about $1.62 Trillion.

Many different solutions to the debt problem have been proposed. Some say that we need to attack the problem from a revenue perspective. But, there is disagreement on how this should be done. Some say that taxes should be raised…but which taxes…and who should pay these taxes? Others say that lowering taxes will actually increase the revenues by boosting the economy. They point to previous tax rate cuts such as those championed by President Kennedy and President Reagan as proof.

"Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower."

Other people believe we should attack the problem from a spending standpoint. The largest block of spending is on what is generally known as Entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Entitlements together make up approximately 58% of the budget. National Defense makes up about 19%. These areas of the budget are very politically sensitive. Any proposed cuts in these areas meet with strong opposition from one group or another.

There are even those who believe that the government should spend more, believing that increased government spending will stimulate the economy and therefore increase revenues. This is the basis of the so-called Stimulus packages that have been enacted and proposed.

And, many believe that some balance between revenue and spending solutions are necessary due to the scale of the problem.

There are consequences of a large national debt. As the debt grows, so does the interest payments required to service that debt. As I mentioned before, interest payments last year alone were more than $413 Billion. When the budget continues to be in deficit, it becomes more and more difficult to pay this growing interest. In effect, the government is borrowing money to pay the interest of previous loans…never getting a chance to pay down the loans.  When Congress proposes new spending, it is actually calling for more borrowing...since we don't have enough revenues to pay for our current spending.

If the lenders’ faith that the United States can pay back the loans and interest diminishes as the debt grows, the country’s credit rating can be downgraded, as recently happened when Standard & Poor’s changed their rating of the US from triple A (AAA) to Double A plus (AA+). This can, as with individuals, effect interest rates the government has to pay and its ability to borrow.  Ultimately, if the problem gets too large, the country can fail to make necessary payments and default on its loans. This can have even worse consequences to the economy.

When Congress proposes new spending, it is actually calling for more borrowing...since we don't have enough revenues to pay for our current spending.

The scale of the debt issue is very large…almost too large to understand. There is very little agreement on what should be done, but it is a problem that must be addressed. This debt can affect all of our futures and the future of our country. I hope I have been able to offer just a little perspective to a complex issue.

How Poor Are Our Poor?

Bill Whittle of PJTV makes an excellent point in the video below that I have been complaining about for years.  Namely, that the so-called "poor" in America are not really poor and that our tax money...the 50% or so of us who are paying taxes...should not go to support most of those who are receiving entitlements.  I have long contended that someone who is "poor" does not have cable TV...does not have a cell phone...does not have an Xbox.  These people are not poor and I don't want to pay for their cable bill or to buy them cigarettes or Twinkies.

Whittle shows graphs from a new Heritage Foundation report on poverty in the U.S.  These charts are very revealing.  Watch the video and tell me that we cannot cut fat out of the entitlement programs.

Competing Money

Friedrich A. Hayek, famous economist and author of The Road To Serfdom, said the following concerning money in an interview:

"Oh, I am absolutely convinced that no government is capable of...politically or intellectually...of providing the exact amount of money that is needed for economic development. And, I should be all in favor...in fact, I'm convinced we shall never have decent money in name before we take from government the monopoly of issuing money and allow competing institutions...of course under different names...not issue the the same money, but competing monies...and let people decide which kind of money they prefer to use."

This may seem pretty radical.  Many people think that if the government doesn't control the issue of money,  poverty and anarchy will ensue.  But, we already have competing monies on a global basis and it all works fine. The markets decide, based on many factors, what the exchange rate is between the Dollar and the Yen...or between the Yuan.   In fact, when the European Union decided that they needed to consolidate their monies into a single currency, the Euro, it helped some countries and hurt others...so less currency competition is not necessarily best.

A century ago we had competing monies in this country. As Lawrence H. White writes on the Library of Economics and Liberty, "Much more competition in money has existed in the past. Under 'free banking' systems, private banks competitively issued their own paper currency notes, called 'bank notes,' that were redeemable for underlying 'real,' or 'basic,' monies like gold or silver. And competition among those basic monies pitted gold against silver and copper."

But, some will say, we had to get to a single currency to stop the cycle of bank panics and boom and bust.  The way we attempted to do this  is to give the Federal Reserve a government-granted monopoly on creating money.  And how has that worked?  Well, as Dr. Thomas E Woods Jr. points out in his book Rollback, "Since the Fed opened it's doors in 1914 following the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value, after having held its value in tact from the beginning of the republic until the creation of the Fed."  That is not a very good track record of itself, but what about the Fed's stabilization of the economy?  As you might guess, this also isn't necessarily the case.  "Some recent research finds the two periods (pre- and post-Fed) to be approximately equal in volatility," says Woods, "and some finds the post-Fed period in fact to be more volatile, once faulty data are corrected for."  So, taken as a whole, the Federal Reserve, and its monopoly on money creation, has been a over-all negative.

Many economists believe that we should return to "hard money" in the United States, and indeed across the world.  Hard money is a currency that is based on something with an intrinsic value, such as gold or silver.  What we have now is known as "fiat money."  Investopia defines fiat money as, "Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith."  Investopia further explains that, "Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value."  If the markets lose faith in the paper money you get what we have now, a greatly devalued dollar and lowered credit ratings.

Since fiat money is not based on any real assets, the government monopoly is free to just print more to finance their increasing lust for power.  They don't really care if it devalues, they can just print more.  It's "monopoly money" anyway, so to speak.  What do they care?  But we should care.  Every time they devalue our money by printing more, the value of your savings and investments go down, your purchasing power goes down and the over all economy declines as corporate investments and purchasing power also suffers.

So, government has had its monopoly for 97 years now and have done a terrible job at it.  The only real solution for monopoly is...wait for it...COMPETITION!  Imagine that.  And the market and States are beginning to take matters into their own hands.  Dan Armstrong of ConnectMidichigan.com reports that "New types of money are popping up across Mid-Michigan and supporters say, it's not counterfeit, but rather a competing currency."  The International Business Times reports that "Utah just became the first US state to recognize gold as legal tender. Its Legal Tender Act of 2011 allows U.S. minted gold and silver coins to be recognized as legal tender in the value that reflects the market price for gold and silver."  Minnesota, North Carolina South Carolina, Idaho and Georgia are also considering similar  legislation.  I believe this is a good sign that the States are willing to do what is necessary for the welfare of their own people.  Competition is good.

Hayek said, "Abolishing the government monopoly on issuing money would deprive governments of persuing monetary policies...that's what I want to see."  And, so do I.

More News on Global Warming Hoax

The Man Made Global Warming hoax continues to fall apart:

Scientist Who Claimed Polar Bears Were Drowning Is Investigated For 'Scientific Misconduct'

This article reports that Dr Charles Monnett, the man who originally claimed that polar bears were drowning due to melting polar ice due to Man Made Global Warming, has been placed on leave and is being investigated for 'integrity issues' apparently linked to the polar bear report.

Dr David Whitehouse, concerning the Monnett situation, said, "The dangers of climate science is that once you passionately believe in man-made global warming, you see connections everywhere when you should be scientifically cautious about drawing conclusions."

U.S. Scientists Pour Cold Water On Rapid Global Warming Theory

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Danny Braswell claim data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that the Earth’s atmosphere is releasing more heat into space than forecasted by  climate change models.

"Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modellers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle."

"Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases."

Term Limits, Anyone?

Never a better reason for term limits than this.  Our legislators were never supposed to get rich from serving.  The longer they are in office, the more corrupt they get.



The List of the Congressmen who are getting rich by serving in Congress - Click Here

Government Restricts Consumer Choice

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) puts the smackdown on the Light Bulb Nazis.

DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

This video makes the debt situation pretty clear. 

CUT SPENDING NOW!



They are lying to you about the Debt Ceiling deadline.  You don't reform a "spendaholic" by raising their credit card limit.

Good Causes - Bad Laws

Let me start by saying that I love animals...especially dogs.  I can hardly watch the TV commercials from the Humane Society or the ASPCA.  The images of those neglected and abused animals breaks my heart.  I think that anyone who abuses animals should be strictly punished through the law.  If someone abused my dog, or a dog I know...God help them.  That's where I stand on the cause of preventing animal abuse.

On a recent trip to the Washington D.C. area, I was listening to a local talk show host interviewing Wayne Pacelle of the  Humane Society of the United States.  They were talking about a bill making it's way through Congress that would make it a Federal crime to be a spectator of, take a child to, or organize dog fights.  This is The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492). introduced by Reps. Tom Marino, (R-PA) and Betty Sutton (D-OH).

Sounds like a good cause, right?  I agree.  Dog fighting is a horrendous activity that should be stopped.  Pictures of animals who have been involved in dog fights (like the one above) sicken me.  And, the host and Mr. Pacelle both agreed that most people want to see it ended.  In fact, they speculated that this bill would pass with almost unanimous support.  After all, who would disagree with the cause of stopping such a terrible crime?  And that, in a nut shell, is the problem.  A good cause...yes.  A good law...no.

When people see something that is wrong, an injustice, they want to see it righted.  They look to government to pass a law.  That is generally how our representative republic works.  The problems is, most of our fellow citizens have no idea of how our governments are supposed to operate...the divisions of power designed into the Constitution.  They also do not understand or, sadly, don't care about the principles behind our founding documents.  Dog fighting is clearly a State issue.  It is not, in any way, an enumerated power of the Federal government.  And, in fact, according to a Humane Society of the United States report, all 50 States have laws concerning dog fighting.

So, you may ask, what makes the difference if it is a State or Federal law?  It's a very good cause, you say, it needs all the help it can get.  It is that attitude from our general citizenry that has brought us to the situation in which we now find ourselves.  It has lead to our behemoth, highly centralized, bloated and corrupt Federal government.  This mind set has given us out-of control bureaucrats who believe that only they know best and that they have unlimited power.

In the early days of our country, most citizens, being highly suspicious of centralized power, resisted efforts of the Federal government to take more power unto itself.  The Constitution was debated among those who wanted a very limited Federal government (the "Federalists") and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (the "Anti-Federalists").  They saw highly centralized and powerful governments as a clear danger to the liberties of the citizenry. In contrast, today our citizens seem in a rush to push more and more power to the Federal government.  They see a good cause, a perceived injustice, or just something that makes them mad and they say, "Why, there outta be a law."  And they expect the Federal government to do something.

This trend of looking to the Federal government has grown and accelerated since the early 20th century.  And now, though polls show that most voters (71%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, they have no idea how we got here or what to do to fix it.  They do not understand that the founding documents were designed to decentralize governmental power...for good reason.  As James Madison stated in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” And, as Thomas Jefferson explained, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

So, a good cause does not necessarily make for a good law...especially when that law gives more power to the Federal government.  Certainly it is easier to deal with one national legislature than 50 State governments, and that is a big reason why causes of national scope are taken to the U. S. Congress.  But this does not make it right...or constitutional.  In taking this easy way, even for causes we are passionate about, we cede a little more of our liberty every time...we hasten the growth of what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as a "soft tyranny" in our country.

We need a new, or should I really say renewed, paradigm; one that allows us to champion good and noble causes, but makes liberty part of the cause.  We should pursue legal remedies only when absolutely necessary and seek them only to the lowest level of government which is proper.  And, keeping the founding principles in mind, never sacrifice one good for another.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

The following is a copy of a letter I sent to the Governor of my state and my state Senator and Representative.  I encourage you to do the same.


Dear [Governor/Senator/Representative],

I am writing today to encourage you to help restore the historic and proper of balance of power between the Federal and State governments in our country.  I fear that the Federal government has become far too powerful and corrupt to offer any reasonable hope for reform from within.  I have now become convinced that the only hope for our country lies in the States operating, as they were intended, as the major check and balance to the centralized power of the Federal government.

As you no doubt know, the United States of America was founded as a federation of free and independent States.  As James Madison stated it in Federalist 39, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a Federal, and not a National constitution."  The struggle against nationalist sentiment within the Federal government has gone on since the beginning of our republic.  However, possibly the largest single blow to the principles of balanced power designed into the U.S. Constitution happened in 1913, with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.  With this one amendment, the States lost almost all of their ability to counteract unconstitutional usurpations of their power by the Federal government.  Senators, who were originally intended to represent the interests of the States, have, in many ways, become more powerful than the States themselves...now dictating to them instead of representing them.

The Seventeenth Amendment has been a chief catalyst to the concentration of power in the central government.  As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate." This concentration of powers in the United States of America has lead to the situation in which we now find ourselves; with a Federal behemoth that has no regard for constitutional limits on its power.  This government believes itself free to force unwanted policies and regulations on the States and the People, regardless of whether it has legal power in these areas or not.  The steady movement toward total nationalism has brought us to the point of out of control spending and unbelievable debt that now threatens our very national security and world standing.

This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue, since both parties have been complicit in the abuse of power.  Neither is it a Liberal or Conservative issue since, though we may disagree in the specifics, we all generally agree in the liberty granted us by our founding documents.

As a leader of our state, then, I implore you to study this issue for yourself and to consider how you may be able to help champion the cause of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution.  With U. S. Senators restored to their proper roles, the States will also be able to retake their proper positions as the chief check on centralized government power.   It is with the members our State governments…with you…in which our hope lies for restoring our country to its founding principles.  The Federal government was created by the States and received its power from the States and from The People.  It is time for the States to reassert themselves and roll back the power of the Federal government.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”– James Madison; Federalist No. 45

Sincerely,

More Big Brother - Smart Meters

I have always said that just because you can do something...doesn't mean you should.  Electric "smart meters" are a good case in point.  They do not, of themselves, save any energy.  They just allow the power company, and anyone else who the power company allows, to monitor your power usage.  What is the use of this?  Well, if they can monitor you, they can begin to control, through various means, your energy consumption.  Once again, we lose a little more of what's left of our privacy.

The video below makes some very interesting points.

Ban the...Bulb?

1960s: Ban the Bomb

It's pretty pathetic that the Lefties have gone from the Ban the Bomb movement to Ban the Bulb.  You may not be aware that a 2007 federal energy bill was passed into law that will ban the good ole' incandescent light bulb by 2014.  This was the same law that increased the auto fuel efficiency standard requirements by 40 percent.  The bill was symbolically sent from Capitol Hill to the White House, for signing by President Bush, in a Toyota Prius hybrid "go-kart."  Both of these measures have the effect of limiting consumer choice and are both outside the scope of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.

While there are pros and cons to the newer, compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, this is not a decision that we, the consumers, should have made for us.  I myself converted my own home to CFL bulbs about a year-and-a-half ago.  Not because I believe it will have any significant effect on the environment or over-all energy consumption...but because I read that I could save significant money on my electric bill...I'm all for that.  However, the increased cost of the CFL over the incandescent is only justifiable, in my eyes, if  they save you on electricity costs and last as long as advertised.  This has not been my experience.  I have since began converting back to incandescent bubs as the CFLs fail, far sooner than they're supposed to, all over my house...with no noticeable savings on electricity.

2000s: Ban the Bulb?

Congress is now considering the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act which would repeal the earlier ban.  The Obama administration has come out strongly against this bill.   On Friday, July 8th, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, concerning the ban, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."  I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, how I may or may not "waste" my money is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

This guy is extremely arrogant and DANGEROUS.  Sure, right now it's just light bulbs...but what else could he use this same twisted-logic on?  Maybe you shouldn't waste your money on non-hybrid cars.  The increased fuel efficiency standards are aimed, I believe, at forcing that exact outcome.  Obama once chided that, "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college.”  Is going to Vegas a waste of money that Big Brother disapproves of...they do use a lot of energy lighting up that town.  Certainly you shouldn't waste your money on dangerous guns or buying boats  or motorcycles or other recreational vehicles, or living where you have a long commute to work...or many, many other things that could be considered a "waste of money" by some government hack or other.

It's just a light bulb, you say.  But it's so much more than that.  This ban is symptomatic of the politics, ideology and agenda of the radical, socialist Left that has come to power in this country.  They believe they know what's best for us all...they believe that only they can pick winning technologies...they believe that they have the right to rule...the Divine right of Oligarchs.  We must check this arrogance of power.  We must stop it's incremental wearing away of our rights...before it is too late.

So,no...it's not just about a light bulb.  You may like CFL bulbs and think they are a good idea.  But, if they can take away my right to choose on this issue, they can take away your right to choose on another.  Will we  allow "Big Brother" to rule every small aspect of our lives.

"That's why this president is so dangerous."

Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) says it very well.  Obama has acted unconstitutionally and dangerously.  I say impeach him now!

Capitalism...Not What You May Have Been Told

As I study the history of this country, more and more I find that much of what we've been told is a cartoon version of reality...and many cases, a pure fabrication. Why would anyone fabricate history, you ask? Because they want to promote an agenda. And in this country, where we have government-run schools, that agenda is pro-big government.

Revisionist history is nothing new. As Winston Churchill said, "History is written by the victors." In the early days of our country, John Adams, at the end of his career, complained of the mythologizing and romanticizing of the history of the revolution. He decried the Virginians' use of "puffers," or what we today call "spin doctors" to paint themselves in a more favorable light or to cover over scandals. In his martyrdom, Abraham Lincoln has been depicted as a saintly, abolitionist who only cared for the freedom of oppressed African slaves. This, I believe was to cover the blatant trampling of the Constitution and total disregard for the principles of the federation of the States. After all, how can you question the motives, or actions of a saint?

This type of revisionism has gone on from the beginning of our republic and will continue past its end. In the video below, Tom Woods speaks of some of the revisionism we have all been subjected to when it comes to the history of capitalism. Why? Because big government needs us all to believe that we are all helpless without their constant guidance and control. Take the time to watch it all. He talks about the fallacies of most often told views of the "evils of capitalism."

Foreign Policy and Spending

Soon after I published yesterday's post, I was made aware of this video by Jack Hunter of The American Conservative.  Also see my earlier post, Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows.

I think it makes the point very well.

The Democrats' Spending Addiction and the Codependant Republicans

It has become very obvious that the Democrats are absolutely addicted to spending.  And they act just like addicts do...Despite being on the verge of going the way of Greece, they deny that there is a problem...they blame others for the problem, that isn't really a problem anyway, they look for new ways to hide and disguise their addiction, and they routinely lie about their addictive behavior. 

But, what about the Republicans?  Well, they have a long history of being enablers and codependents. Remember, if you will,  in 1982, President Ronald Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes that the Democrats were asking for.  The tax hikes took effect...spending cuts, no.  When George H. W. Bush's famously pledged, "Read my lips: No New Taxes" in his run for the presidency, the Democrat-controlled Congress would have none of it.  They demanded more tax money to feed their addiction.  Not learning the lesson from his former boss, Bush finally relented to tax increases after being "promised" a $2 spending cut for every $1 in tax hike.  And again...well you can guess what happened by looking at the chart above.

When faced with the fall-out from the inevitable housing bubble collapse, George W. Bush agreed to sign the "Porkulus" bill...without so much as a token promise from the Democrats...just because they said they had to have it.  This bill provided spending to bail out "too-big-to-fail" Democrat cronies and to "create" jobs...jobs that Jeffery H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard reports were created or saved at "a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job."  Anderson points out that, "the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead."  And, to add insult to near-fatal injury, numbers from a recent report from Obama's own advisers show that "over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the 'stimulus' than it has with it."

And now the Spendocrats are telling us that the fiscal problems we have cannot be solved through spending cuts...again, I'll wait while you look at the chart...we have to raise taxes on the hated rich...those despicable owners of business jets and signers of paychecks.  The problem is that the additional revenue gained from these proposed taxes, if any at all (see previous post), would make up about one-tenth of one percent of the current deficit. The question now is not whether the Democrats will overcome their serious addiction and cut spending, but rather will the Republicans stick to their stated principles and break their cycle of codependency.

Dr. Lawrence Lindsey was a former Governor of the Federal Reserve System from 1991 to 1997, and a Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Economic Policy during the first Bush Administration, among many other things.  He was basically kicked out to the Bush administration for estimating the cost of the first Iraq war at $200B, which Donald Rumsfeld said was "Baloney" and the Office of Management and Budget said would only cost $60B.  The true cost was over $1 Trillion.  In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece Lindsey stated his belief that the true budget deficit is much higher than is currently being estimated by the Obama administration.  "Underestimating the long-term budget situation," Lindsey said, "is an old game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this large."   Lindsey says that "only serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our elected officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind rosy economic and budgetary assumptions."

My fear is that, like so many times in the past, the Republicans will cave-in and enable further deficit spending.  And, as with so many addicts, I'm afraid the Democrats won't change their ways until we have hit rock bottom.  I pray that I am wrong and that the Republican leadership finally gets some backbone.I guess we will know soon.