US COVID-19 Deaths Surpass Influenza...Or Has It?

So, COVID-19 deaths have exceeded those of what we have been seeing for seasonal influenza...just as the "experts" told us they would.  But, have they really?

It has been admitted that, as Dr. Deborah Birx said in a recent press conference, "...in this country, we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality."  She went on to say,  "There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem. Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death."  She then concludes that, "The intent is right now if someone dies with COVID-19, we're counting that as a COVID-19 death."

Notice the difference.  If you died with COVID-19, they are counting it as you died from COVID-19.  And, I will remind you, that even with the "very liberal" accounting of COVID-19 deaths, it is still far lower than pneumonia deaths (42,560 in the first 12 weeks of 2020 alone).

But there is also more to this story.  Dr. Birx talks about the virus "causing" you to go to the ICU, but there are reports coming out, like this one on Fox News from Dr. Scott Jensen, that, unlike at other times, doctors are being encouraged to count deaths of nearly any kind as a COVID-19 death if they have been confirmed to have have the virus.  Dr. Jensen said, "If I have a patient died a month ago, had fever, a cough, and died after three days and had maybe been an elderly, fragile individual, and there happened to be an influenza epidemic around our community, I wouldn't put influenza on the death certificate, and I've never been encouraged to do so.  I would put, probably, respiratory arrest would be the top line and the underlying cause disease would be pneumonia, and in the contributing factors I might well put emphysema or congestive heart failure.  But, I would never put influenza down as the underlying cause of death, and yet, that's what we're being asked to do here."

Much has also been made of the bad time that Italy has had with the virus.  In fact the US and other countries have been using numbers from Italy to model the possible spread and lethality of the epidemic.

But, is Italy the proper case to base a model on.  It has been widely discussed that Italy's demographics skew significantly toward the older population, which are the most vulnerable to COVID-19.  As reported in The Telegraph:

According to Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, the country’s mortality rate is far higher due to demographics - the nation has the second oldest population worldwide - and the manner in which hospitals record deaths. 

“The age of our patients in hospitals is substantially older - the median is 67, while in China it was 46,” Prof Ricciardi says. “So essentially the age distribution of our patients is squeezed to an older age and this is substantial in increasing the lethality.” 

But, beyond the demographic issues with Italy, we now learn that Italy too used a very liberal accounting for COVID-19 deaths.  From The Telegraph again:

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many had two or three,” he says. 

Read it again!  "only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus."  12 percent...TWELVE...the number of deaths times 0.12.  Okay, that's significant!

So, what would the chart look like if the US over-reporting was in the same range as Italy?  And remember what Dr. Birx said above, "very liberal."  It would look something like this:

This is much more in-line with what some experts on epidemics were predicting.

The point I will make is that if we are to take such drastic steps...steps that are causing massive unemployment like we have never seen...we have to be more sure of the numbers.  The devastation to the economy in the long-term could likely be much worse than the short-term affects of the coronavirus pandemic.

I am not going offer conjecture on all the reasons for over-estimating the numbers so massively.  I also admit that some number of the cases where COVID-19 was not the cause of death, it may have been a contributing factor.  The point I will make is that if we are to take such drastic steps...steps that are causing massive unemployment like we have never seen...we have to be more sure of the numbers.  The devastation to the economy in the long-term could likely be much worse than the short-term affects of the coronavirus pandemic.

These are the kinds of results you get when you allow "government experts," of any kind, to make extremely consequential decisions for the whole country.  Remember that their initial models that caused the panic to begin with...the ones that launched the police-state lock-downs...were that 2 million Americans could die.  They have continued to back down those predictions, but their prescription has remained the same, and has gotten worse as more and more jurisdictions have inflicted stricter "social distancing" mandates on their citizens.

Fauci, Birix and the other CDC experts are all working from mathematical modeling that, as Fauci admits "are only as good as the assumptions you put into the model."  But, while he claims to not pay too close attention to the models, these were the numbers that have been reported that caused panic and were, at least in the early days, used to justify the lock-downs.

But these experts are only expert in one, narrow area.  They are not economists...they don't have any real concern for economic realities.  Their concern has always been expressed about "overwhelming the healthcare system."  In addition, the experts in charge...the ones who have the current levers of power...are allowed to ignore other, contradicting expert opinions, like Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis and others.  Some say that "flattening the curve" only prolongs the problem, and therefore the economic affects, by delaying the acquisition of "herd immunity" in the population.  But, they only allow voices that agree with their assessments, even as they are shown to be wrong.

A sample epidemic curve, with and without social distancing. 

Image credit: Johannes Kalliauer/ CC BY-SA 4.0)

 Notice in the diagram above, "flattening the curve" may help the health care system, but it drags the over-all problem out over a much longer time horizon.  This will, therefore cause longer-term negative effects to the economy.  The longer a business is kept from pursuing revenue, the less likely it will be able to survive...the higher the number of long-term unemployed and financial damage.  But, as you can see from the diagram, the total number of deaths is likely to be nearly the same.

While we know that the defense of the "flattening the curve" approach is to guard against overwhelming the healthcare system, have we really critically questioned the assumptions.  Yes, some areas are being hit hard, New York City, in particular, but nothing like what was predicted.  Remember, Governor Anthony Cuomo's exasperated question "What am I going to do with four hundred ventilators when I need thirty thousands?"  Well, it hasn't turned out that they have needed anywhere near that number.  But even if it had been worse than it is, we have the vast majority of the rest of the country with excess healthcare sitting idle with employees being furloughed..  Surely we could have made this work in the short term to get through this faster.

When asked about when we can expect to open the country back up, Dr. Fauci said. "I think reopening it is not going to be like a light switch that you switch on or off.  Because, if you look at throughout the country, it's a large country and the outbreaks are really quite different, depending on where you are."  This seems to make some sense, but the question I have is why did we have to switch the country off all at one time?   As Fauci continued, "New York, New Jersey area is very different from now what we've seen in Washington State and in California, in which there was the threat of a real big spike, but it really didn't occur and is at that low level."

In fact, it is true that areas in the country are very different.  The following chart shows the number of deaths (reportedly) caused by COVID-19 per State as of April 10th.

 So, from this chart, we have to ask, why do we have nearly the entire country on lock-down?  The answer is simple...FEAR.  Fear started and perpetuated by the so-called experts, based on faulty mathematical modeling.  Fear of the disease...but also fear that politicians of all stripes might be held responsible for not doing enough.  Fear that was not tempered in any way by the opinion of other "experts" in the same or other areas.  I've laid out what I think some of the other causes have been in a previous post.

The arguments we keep seeing are based on a false dichotomy.  There are not only two choices: Total shut-down...OR...we're all going to die!  There are many, many choices in between.  As we get through this current scare and come out the other side, I hope, and believe that the economy will rebound.  There is no-doubt pent up demand that is being held back by the lock-down.  But, how many of your favorite businesses will survive it?  How many people will be out of jobs?  The longer this goes, the worse those effects will be.  Let's start reversing this lock-down anywhere we can...NOW.

We cannot retain our liberty if we uncritically accept anything that comes from so-called government experts.

Consider the Humble Pencil

In 1958, Leonard E. Read published an article titled,
I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read.  This short story very succinctly describes what Read calls the "miracle of ...millions of tiny know-hows" that go into producing something as simple as a pencil. It has become a classic amongst proponents of free markets.  The actual article can be read here.

What is this miraculous process?  There is the harvesting of the cedar wood used to make the body of the pencil and all of the tools, transportation, housing and food for workers, etc. that are required for this seemingly simple task.  The graphite that is mined in Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka), mixed with clay from Mississippi, acid, tallow and other ingredients to make the "lead" of the pencil, with all of the background tools processes, and requirements. Not to mention the rubber for the eraser, the metal for the ferrule, and the lacquer to paint the wood.

All-in-all, millions of people, all with their own skills and knowledge, their know-hows, are involved in the production of something as mundane as a pencil.  

"I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple."

How can a pencil represent such an important concept as to be important to our very liberty?  It is in understanding the concept that the process of making something so simple takes so many millions of voluntary interactions between people spread across the world.  That all of these processes could never be planned, let alone controlled by one person, group or even government...and this one of the simplest of items.  How then can the central planners of government think they can control whole industries?  Economies?  The climate?  They cannot.

"Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental 'master-minding.'"

But, since 1958, it has been more than proven that the government is grossly inept at delivering the mail.  Companies like FedEx, UPS and others have proven that private firms can bring innovation and efficiencies to the process and allows them to turn a tidy profit.  The US Postal Service would have been defunct years ago if it weren't subsidized by taxpayers.  And this is just one of thousands of areas where government is completely inept.  Yet we continue to believe that they know best.  We continue to allow them to control us.  And this, more than anything else, threatens our liberty.

The video below is a great six minute coverage of all of the concepts from the article...with great graphics in living color.  Enjoy.

The More Things Change...

It's as true today as it was then...people don't know history...they are clueless about how the economy works...and don't know or care about the consequences of the way they vote.  People STILL believe that the Great Depression was a failure of the Free Market.  Why?  Because those really at fault, government, told them so.  But Friedman tells a different story:

"So the Great Depression was not produced by a failure of business.  On the contrary, it was produced by a failure of government...and a failure of government in an area in which responsibility had been assigned to government since the founding of this country...We have learned from that failure.  The Federal Reserve will not fail in the same way again.  This time it will fail in a different way.  This time it has been failing, not by producing a Great Depression, but by producing an inflation.  Because just as you will hear the story that it was business that was responsible for the depression, so you will today  hear the story that it is labor and management that are responsible for inflation.  It is the same kind of a myth."

The inflation he is speaking of here is in the 1970s when interest rates were in the double-digits and much of the American manufacturing base, such as steel, collapsed.  President Gerald Ford ran on a W.I.N. platform, which stood for Whip Inflation Now.  It was a time of what was being called "hyper-inflation," and it was devastating to our economy.

Today, we are on the verge of another devastation to our economy.  The Federal Reserve is printing more and more money.  This causes the value of the dollar to drop, and therefore, prices to raise...this is inflation.  But who is to blame.  Once again, Friedman tells it like it is:

"Inflation is made in one place, and one place only...Washington D.C.  And in Washington D.C., the chief source...immediate source of inflation...is a Greek temple on Constitution Avenue, which houses the Federal Reserve Board.  An accomplice, and a major accomplice of course, sits in the halls of Congress in Washington.  They are a major accomplice because you tell 'em to be.  The American people have been telling Congress for many years, 'Spend more money on us, please.'  But they've been telling us, 'Don't raise our taxes.'  Congress has been listening.  It's been spending more money on you, but, on the other hand, its been very unwilling to raise taxes.  As a result, its imposed inflation as a tax. That's one tax you don't have to vote for...but you have to pay."

I fear, though, that things are building to be even worse.  With the debt as high as it is, many in government today seem to have no problem both causing inflation and increasing taxes.

Watch the whole video.  It's an interesting history lesson, one that is very relevant for today.

Debt Limit Looming...Again!

In July of 2011, I did a post with two videos arguing against raising the Federal debt ceiling.  Well, of course they did it...they raised the ceiling.  At that time, we were about to come up against a $14.2 trillion debt limit.  We were told we had to raise the debt ceiling or we would be in default...a lie.  Now, less than a year and a half later, Newsmax,com reports that, "The Obama administration said on Wednesday that the nation would hit the legal limit on its debt near the year's end..."  That's right, now the Central Spending Machine is only "$235 billion below the $16.4 trillion statutory ceiling on the amount it can borrow."  The Debt now exceeds the GDP of the entire country at just over $15 trillion.

In an October 2011 post, when we were a mere $14 trillion in debt, I tried to put the National Debt in Perspective.  In that post I said:

"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."

I also pointed out that then it would have taken 384 years to pay off the debt if government stopped spending any other money and just paid $100,000,000 a day on the debt.  That time frame has increased by 65 years to 449 years...in a year and a half.

Let me remind you that candidate Obama said of President Bush's addition of $4 trillion to the debt in eight years, "That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."  Which I agreed with.  Now Obama will have raised the debt by more than $6 trillion in four years.

The Debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the last decade, from $5.9 trillion to $16.4 trillion. And now, the Treasury is already calling for another hike, "As we saw last summer, it is important that the debt limit is raised in a timely manner," said Treasury Assistant Secretary Matthew Rutherford.  

Our credit rating has already fallen.  Our spending is out of control.  We cannot continue to raise the debt ceiling.  We cannot continue to pass results of the current government's irresponsibility down to our children, grandchildren ..and great, great grandchildren.  We need to take responsibility.  We need people who do not allow their votes to be bought with government hand-outs.  We need serious adult leadership in government.  We need to reduce the size and scope of government...and we can't put it off.

Obamanomics

Andrew Klaven provides another humorous and irreverent look at Obama's policies and understanding...or rather lack of understanding of how the economy works.

Klaven refers to James R, Otteson's article, An Audacious Promise: The Moral Case for Capitalism for The Manhattan Institute.   In this article, Otteson points out that while Obama said that "the market" or capitalism "doesn't work. It has never worked," this flies in the face of historical facts:

"Since 1800, the world’s population has increased sixfold; yet despite this enormous increase, real income per person has increased approximately 16-fold. That is a truly amazing achievement. In America, the increase is even more dramatic: in 1800, the total population in America was 5.3 million, life expectancy was 39, and the real gross domestic product per capita was $1,343 (in 2010 dollars); in 2011, our population was 308 million, our life expectancy was 78, and our GDP per capita was $48,800. Thus even while the population increased 58-fold, our life expectancy doubled, and our GDP per capita increased almost 36-fold. Such growth is unprecedented in the history of humankind. Considering that worldwide per-capita real income for the previous 99.9 percent of human existence averaged consistently around $1 per day, that is extraordinary. "

"What explains it? It would seem that it is due principally to the complex of institutions usually included under the term “capitalism,” since the main thing that changed between 200 years ago and the previous 100,000 years of human history was the introduction and embrace of so-called capitalist institutions—particularly, private property and markets."

The article goes on to show that, contrary to socialist propaganda, capitalism is actually the system that benefits the most people and is, in fact, the moral choice.  Some of his key points are:

• "(M)arkets allow us to 'serve' one another even when we do not love one another—even when we do not know of one another’s existence."
• "(V)oluntary exchanges that take place in the free-enterprise system are positive-sum, not zero-sum—meaning not that one person benefits only at another’s expense but rather that all parties to the transaction benefit."
• "Even if we do not all get rich at the same rate, we all still get richer."
• Rescuing hundreds of millions of people from grinding poverty is, however, nothing to sneeze at—and nothing to take for granted."

Otteson admitts that, "Capitalism is not perfect."  But, he points out that, "The benefits of the free-enterprise society are enormous and unprecedented; they have meant the difference between life and death for hundreds of millions of people and have afforded a dignity to populations that are otherwise forgotten. We should wish to extend these benefits rather than to curtail them."

"It would be all too easy for us, among the wealthiest people who have ever lived, in one of the richest places on earth, to disdain the institutions that have enabled us to escape the strictures of poverty and disrespect that have plagued humanity for the vast majority of its existence. Our crime today, however, would lie not in our inequalities but rather in our refusal to uphold the institutions that give humanity the only hope it has ever known of rising out of its natural state of destitution. The great and precious blessings of freedom and prosperity that we Americans have enjoyed, and that some, but not enough, others around the world have also experienced, deserve nothing less."

Do you really want a president who is so completely ignorant of how the economy really works?  I don't.

Enjoy the video, but don't miss it's point.

The Problem of The Poor

Milton Friedman is as relevant on this point today as he was in 1978...maybe more so.  In 1978, we did not have a $16 TRILLION Federal debt with an even larger unfunded future entitlement liability.

"Stimulus" Doesn't Stimulate

Facts are facts.

The Truth Behind "You Didn't Build That"

When Obama made his now infamous "You didn't build that," speech, we got a deeper insight into the true beliefs and motivations of this president.  As Daren Jonescu points out in his article in the American Thinker, Obama is espousing a central tenet of communist doctrine, namely, there is no private ownership of property.

It was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who first proposed the idea that "property is theft" in his book What Is Property.  An excerpt from this book gives the basis of the doctrine:

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"

As you can see here, Proudhon called property ownership robbery and drew a direct equivalency between private property ownership and slavery and murder.  It was this same book that led Karl Marx to call for the abolishment of all private property.  

Another of the fathers of communist thought, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a similar assertion when he said, "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

 This has been a standard mantra for collectivists and central planners throughout the years...and Obama carries the banner forward.  As Jonescu points out, "The 'fundamental transformation' Obama seeks to impose on America has many practical manifestations, but all his sundry means relate to one basic end. This is the permanent 'transformation' of a nation grounded in the principle of individual self-ownership (the philosophical foundation of property rights) into a nation grounded in the principle that everything you have is merely on loan to you from the great gods of collectivism -- 'society,' 'history,' and 'government.' "  As much as they try to deny it, Obama is a communist/socialist/ collectivist/central planner.  These are all just labels for the same basic worldview with roots in the political philosophy of writers like Proudhon and Rousseau.

This philosophy is in direct opposition to the foundational principles of our country.  The United States was based, in no small part, on the idea of personal property rights.  One of the key philosophers who influenced the American founders was John Locke.  As Jonescu points out, Locke had a completely different view of property.  Lock stated that  "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men [in the state of nature], yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself."  Additionally, Locke said, "The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."  In other words, Your body is your own...all that your labor has earned belongs to you...and not to anyone else.

But, Obama and his fellow communists believe, that all property is held in common, and, therefore, it is only natural that someone who has more should have to give up what he has to those who have less. This is his point when he says. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  He is just repeating what he has learned through his life being influenced by communist thought.  We know that he sought out Marxist professors in college...that he has been mentored by Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers.  He believes in redistribution of wealth, and that allowing people to keep their own money is equivalent to government spending, as if all money belongs to government to begin with.  So..."You didn't build that," shouldn't surprise us.  In his mind, nothing can be done outside the collective and without a central government...and that, my friends, is communism, pure and simple.

Jonescu summarizes:

"The reason why one has no right to the fruit of another man's labor is not to be casually glossed, and it cannot be overemphasized: the other man's labor is itself his property, derived from his most fundamental property, namely himself.  (This explains why state-controlled medicine is the ultimate policy prize of leftists; it directly attacks the heart of property rights, the right to the use and preservation of your own person.)"

"This brings us back to modern progressivism, and its chief mouthpiece, Barack Obama.  By denying the inviolable right of the 'successful' to the legitimately acquired result of their intellectual and physical efforts, Obama and his cohorts are denying the successful man's ownership of himself."

Today, Obama only calls for the fruits of those he deems as "rich."  This is the essence of class warfare.  But, if "the rich" can have their property so casually confiscated, what will keep them for coming for yours and mine?  Communist philosophy has never in the history of the world lead to societies with more freedom and prosperity.  It has only lead to totalitarianism by a group of elite central rulers at the expense of the masses. 

Obama and his cohorts represent a clear and present danger to our liberties.  They stand against the founding principles of this great country and on the shoulders of their Marxist mentors.  They must be defeated, both politically and in the hearts and minds of the people.  

Obama must be voted out of office in November!

It's A Miraculous Life

No need to add anything.  Whittle nails it.

Obama Tax Hikes Will Cost Jobs

A study recently released by Earnst & Young, LLP says that if the Bush-era tax cuts for wage earners over $250,000 are allowed to expire, the country will lose 710,000 jobs while the economy declines by $200 billion.  The report's author, Robert Carroll wrote, “The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.”

Of course, the Democrats are rushing to dismiss the report's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions because it does not fit their tax-and-spend doctrine.   White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundage posted analysis from Jason Furman of the National Economic Council which says that the report “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”  Even if all of the revenues raised by this tax hike went to helping reduce the deficit, it is only estimated to raise enough to fund the deficit for about eight days...not eight days of government spending, mind you, just the deficit spending.

Furman claims that Obama's plan "includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1.00 of revenue."  What in the history of Obama, or the Democrats...or the Republicans, for that matter...would lead anyone to believe that they won't continue to increase spending?  This president has presided over the largest accumulation of national debt in the history of the country, by far.  Debt has increased by more than $5 TRILLION in less than four years.  This claim is eerily familiar to when the Democratically controlled Congress promised President George H. W. Bush three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax hikes. Bush famously capitulated, breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.  What he got was not spending cuts, but...you know what's coming, don't you...that's right, increased spending. 

Frum says that the study "leaves out the President’s proposed new tax cuts for business hiring and investment."  This is proposed, of course, and not actual, enacted tax cuts. Obama's cuts will, supposedly provide a "10 percent tax credit for business hiring and wage increases and allowing immediate write-offs of new investment through the end of 2012."  So, with these cuts, Obama is trying once again to micromanage the economy.  Businesses do not hire because they get tax credits for doing so; they hire when demand for their products and/or services is high enough to justify adding head count.  In prolonged downturns of the economy, businesses are even more hesitant to hire, due to the uncertainties of the market.  Instead, they make due with the employees they have working more and more overtime before hiring.  This is why hiring is always a lagging indicator for economic recovery.

In a May article on the NPR web site, columnist Fred Barnes said there are problems with, what he calls
"Obama's phantom tax breaks." Here's what he said:

"There are three big problems here. The first is that his 17 tax cuts have had little if any impact on small businesses or the economy. Basically, they failed. Second, his new cuts are much like the earlier ones. They're temporary, narrow, and not what small business owners are asking for, which are fewer regulations and a permanent cut in the personal income tax rate or at least no hike in that rate. Third, they have no chance of being enacted in 2012."

Frum continues by saying that even the Earnst & Young report acknowledges "that the short-run impact of extending the high-income tax cuts will be proportionately less than the impact of the middle-income cuts, noting that a 'disproportionate share of the tax change is likely to be channeled through savings for taxpayers facing the top tax rates as compared to other taxpayers.'  As I have been prone to saying a lot lately, SO WHAT?  This is just basically saying that raising taxes on the middle-income earners is also a bad idea.  It does not negate the claims that there will be job loss and economic downturn.

The main reason for the job loss seems to be that a large number of small businesses file at an individual rate rather than a corporate rate.  Obama claims that he will be giving "tax cuts for 97 percent of all small-business owners in America." and his proposal "isn’t about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators.”  But, the businesses under $250,000 a year are not job creators.  These are mostly small, one or two person shops...consultants and freelancers.  The Heritage Foundation calculated that "the average American with $250,000 or more in income can expect an average $24,888 tax increase next year under Obama’s proposed policies."  Looking at Treasury Department data they determined that "1.2 million small businesses both had employees and earned more than $200,000 in 2007. So the President is putting about 1.2 million jobs—perhaps even more—at risk with this tax hike." 

Obama is a big-government socialist.  He claims that, in his words, "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs leads to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."  He believes that not raising taxes on Americans is spending by the government.  And so far, all of his policies that are supposedly aimed at fixing the economy through big-government solutions have been complete failures.  So please excuse me if I might tend to accept the conclusions of the Earnst & Young report over anything this failed president or his minions might offer as evidence supporting their plans.   Expecting more of the same to work this time is the very definition of insanity.

Government Exploitation

In light of the ridiculous statements Obama has been making about the nature of success in this country, which I covered in my previous post, I thought I would share this video by Matt Zwonlinski, PhD on the subject of whether capitalism exploits workers.  He gives a very well reasoned and succinct coverage of the topic.

Dr. Zwonlinski concludes that while capitalists want to exploit workers, they can't very well in a free market society because of the competition for good labor.  Interaction between business and labor is voluntary and mutually agreed on.  Government, however, has the coercive power to exploit the ordinary citizens.  It is, in fact Government that poses the most danger of exploitation...and, therefore, danger to our liberty.

“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.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.

Success? That's No Big Deal.

"If you got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." ~ Barack Obama

This kind of thing has me heart sick for our country.  Not because Obama said it; I expect this kind of idiocy to come from Obama and his operatives.  What deeply saddens me is that he can say it and not be booed off the stage...that so many average Americans seem to be buying into this collectivist, anti-American drivel.  Not so long ago we were not afraid to condemn this kind of socialist rhetoric as dangerous to our very way of life...to our liberty.  Now, it resides in the White House.

Obama says, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system we have that allowed you to thrive."  While this is all true, Obama wants us to draw the conclusion that since, as John Donne famously penned, "No man is an island, entire of itself," we should not have a problem giving more of our money, time, and freedom to the collectivist, central government.  In the mind of Obama and that of  his ilk, the government is the font of all opportunity, all provision, all wealth, and all power...but only when they are in charge of it.

Success, regardless of what Obama thinks or says, does not happen because of the goodness of government.  Taxes, fees, regulations, and bureaucratic red tape place ever-larger road blocks in the path of small business.  This makes the already difficult task of business success almost impossible.  No, success happens in spite of government, not because of it.  


Successful entrepreneurs are not necessarily the smartest, or hardest working in our society.  But they are the ones who have used the intelligence they have, worked very, very hard, taken the risks, overcome the failures, and continued to strive toward their goals. They must have the right product or service, in the right location at the right time.  They risk their own money, sweat, and family lives to get the business started, and then more than 50% go out of business in the first five years.  Many successful entrepreneurs have failed multiple times in the process of learning how to succeed.  These are costs that the average American is not willing to pay.


Obama does not have a clue as to what it truly takes to succeed in business, and he continues to show his ignorance through his policies that have given us an economy that continues to falter with dismal unemployment numbers.  How dare he lecture us on what it takes to succeed!  It is not the teacher who gives the business owner money and stands by them through the long nights of paper work and planning.  It is not the road worker or the fireman who share their anguish about how they will make the next payroll.  It is not the government bureaucrat or politician who gives them the motivation and drive to keep going, even when it seems impossible to win.  No, these business people are out there to fail or succeed all on their own.   


And what about this "unbelievable American system we have" that allows them to thrive?  How can they get their supplies or ship their goods without the roads provided by the government?  What about electricity, communications, water, sewage infrastructure?  The small businessman didn't build those, but he uses them all for his success.  This is true...SO WHAT?!  All of those things are the natural outcome of people interacting together in a society.  Everyone is doing what they can to make a living by providing products or services to his fellow man.  The carpenter frames the storefront.  The electrical worker brings power to the building. The construction worker builds the roads to bring customers to the store.  All of these people ply their trades for their own self-interest.  The store owner owes them nothing.  They have been paid in full.  This has nothing to do with government.  We do not need government's permission to do it and we do not need their interference to make it happen.  See my earlier post, Why Feed The Pig, for more on the subject of government's involvement in infrastructure.


Without people interacting in this way there is no wealth creation, and, therefore, no money for government.  Business came first...people came first.  Government is a creature of the people.  Nothing -- NOTHING --of value originates with government.  In this country, The People institute government to serve them, not to rule them.  That is the principle of republicanism.


It has not been very long ago when the majority of people in this country celebrated success.  How then, can so many people now buy into its denigration, as if it is only a matter of luck and the largess of a benevolent government?  This attitude has not come about overnight.  It is the result of years and years of continuous programming.  Over the last decades we have been fed on a  diet of  class warfare that has told us that the rich have only succeeded on the backs of the poor.  We have been lead to believe that the economy is a zero-sum game where the more the rich make, the less there is for me and you.  We have had the self esteem movement inflicted on us, which tells us that everyone is special, whether you are a doctor or a welfare bum.  Multiculturalism has also told us that all cultures are equal, whether they have brought us wealth, art, and science, or they stone their women for talking to a man, or kill each other in clashes between warlords...one's as good as the other.  All lies!


All of these things have been designed to convince us that no one is special.  We all "deserve" a trophy.  It's "only fair" that those who have more should "share" it with those who have less...after all, they were just lucky and were helped along by all the rest of us.  It is all a scheme to bring down the very idea of American exceptionalism.  If Americans believe that their system of liberty, capitalism, and "small r" republicanism is nothing special, no better than any other country's system, then "fundamentally changing America" will be much easier. And now, after more than a hundred years of Progressive (socialism in sheep's clothing) teachings and propaganda, the average American has just accepted much of socialism as facts of life.  They have been dumbed-down as citizens in that they don't know or care about how their country operates...or is supposed to operate.  They just believe that government involvement is necessary for any real success.  They can't imagine how roads or infrastructure could possibly be built without an all powerful central government.

After Obama has made moves to take control of banks, auto companies and the healthcare industry, we hear that businesses are just a product of the collective.  Why then shouldn't they be controlled by the central nexus in Washington D.C.?  It only makes sense, right?  This is the central message of socialism.  Too many are either too busy worrying about the next winner of America's Got Talent, or have just become so jaded by the whole process that they have chosen to ignore it and Hope for some good Change.

If there's any hope to save liberty in this country, we must rouse ourselves from this stupor.  We must pay attention.  We must understand the foundations of our freedom and how it is being threatened.  And then, we must act to correct the damage.  In 1790, John Curran rightly said that, "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”  Are we lazy?  Are we common?  Or are we Americans?  Then, let's stand, as Americans, vigilant against threats to our liberty.

A Spending Problem

Revenue - Spending = Deficit 

It is a simple equation, really...why does Washington not seem to understand it?  Our country's debt problem is simply a matter of spending more than the available revenue.

Government revenue historically averages about 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  This seems to be the level that the voting public and the economy will stand.  But, tax revenue per household, adjusted for inflation, as Professor Davies explains in the video below, has risen, by about 300% since the 1950s.

So, if revenue continues to grow over the years, but we also continue to have deficits, what is the problem?  I'll wait a little while for some of you to catch up...That's right, it's spending!  Our rate of spending continues to grow at an even faster rate than revenue.  Professor Davies explains the issue very clearly and succinctly in the video below.



Related Posts:
Federal Spending and the Economy

Are You Getting It Yet?

In several past posts, I have given information on the size and scope of the federal debt.  I have supplied some very good videos from others...and some of you still think that it's just not that bad.  Some think, like multimillionaire, hypocrite Michael Moore, that America is awash with money and if we just take it from the evil rich, we would all be okay.

In this video, self-described independent, and motivational speaker Tony Robbins uses information originally compiled by blogger IowaHawk and updates it for 2012.  This takes a look at what would happen if we did soak the rich.

This should be a real eye opener.  It is abundantly and mathematically certain that we cannot tax our way out of the mess our politicians have gotten us into.  We must CUT SPENDING...DRASTICALLY.  And if we don't, we will have a collapse of our economy.  It's not too late...I think...but that time is quickly coming.  Are you getting it yet?  We can't tolerate the status quo.  We cannot continue to allow our elected officials to use OUR MONEY to buy votes, power, and influence.    We cannot take care of everyone...cradle-to-grave.  We have to cut the size and scope of government dramatically!

Are You Getting It YET?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.