Immorality and our Politicians

In responding to a thread about, what ended up being a discussion of whether we can say we care about immorality if we support Trump, with his past and continuing indiscretions, I provided the following feedback that I wanted to share here:

I think the problem is much larger than who is president, or which immorality we are willing to tolerate. The problem is more fundamental. If the office of president was fulfilling its constitutional role...and only what is proscribed in the constitution, much of this would be of no consequence. From the very beginning of the country, and all the way through until today, the office has been filled with flawed men...and many profoundly flawed. Petty, immoral and corrupt men. But, we have elevated this office, in practice and in culture, to a much higher level than it should ever have been. We were never to have a replacement for a king. The fact that we build monuments and carve the sides of mountains as tribute to these men is the problem.

It seems to be a condition of mankind...we want to be ruled over rather than free. Even Israel demanded of Samuel that he appoint a king. This was NOT God's desire for them, but he allowed them to have it.

1 Samuel 8: 6-20:   But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.  As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you.  Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” 

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.  He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.  Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.  He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.  He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.  He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.  When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” 

 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us.  Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” 

 Government is NOT the answer. It ruins everything it touches. The only hope is to reduce it as much as possible...keep it at bay for as long as we can. And, unfortunately, that always seems to to leave us to a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Ashamed?

http://www.cato.org/blog/sequestration-cuts-perspective

On his March 21st show, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement: "Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country." Audio can be found here.

Rush lists as his reason for shame the way we are having "our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it's being." The latest insult to our intelligence for which Rush has gotten so incensed is the maelstrom that is being whipped up over the so-called sequestration cuts to the budget.  As Rush said, it is only "44 billion dollars...that's the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year.  And, in truth, we're gonna spend more this year than we spent last year...There is no real cut below a base-line of zero."  But we are to believe that any cuts at all to the planned spending of our bloated bureaucracy will cause a collapse of all of our necessary government services.  It's as if the line from the movie Ghost Busters is about to come true:

"What he means is Old Testament...real wrath of God type stuff...Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!...Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave!...Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! "

All this over a $44 B cut to the baseline budget.  As Larry Kudlow states, "According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one-quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What's more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget."  And remember, that is 1.25% of the proposed increased budget over last year...so no real cuts.  Kudlow also observed that:

"Federal outlays as a share of GDP peaked at 25.2 percent in fiscal-year 2009, fell to 24.1 percent in 2011, and came in at 22.8 percent in 2012. The long-term historical norm is about 19 percent, so spending is still way too high. But some progress has been made. And if the GOP sticks to its guns and implements the current sequester, a lot more progress will be made, opening the door to a stronger economy."

"In other words, lower spending and limited government are the exact right medicine for free-market prosperity. The sequester cuts are pro-growth. Finish the job, please."

So, should this make Rush ashamed of his country?  Well, it makes me ashamed.  I love this country and what it has stood for in the history of the world.  But there are many things I am ashamed of when it comes to the current state of our country.  I am ashamed that as a whole, through our votes and indifference, we have allowed our country to come under the control of unscrupulous, power hungry statists.  I'm ashamed that the majority of citizens have given up on the founding principles that made this the freest and most prosperous country in the world.  More than that, they don't even know what those principles are, other than a few platitudes, and worse, don't care.

I am ashamed that after once being the most prosperous, productive and innovative country on the face of the planet, we have become a debtor nation, owing more in debt than the entire GDP of our economy.  That we have fallen behind in education and manufacturing. And that those on the government dole nearly exceeds those who make their own way.  I am ashamed that we seem to have become a country of spoiled, irresponsible children with an entitlement mentality who would rather pass their debt to posterity than give up their government freebies.

I am ashamed that after so much progress has been made since the struggles of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, so many have abandoned Dr. King's dream that people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  Too many people follow the purveyors of multiculturalism and class warfare who seek to divide and weaken us...benefiting only the purveyors themselves.  I am ashamed that so many voted for a presidential candidate with no qualifications for the job, an unknown and questionable background with very anti-American associations only because of the color of his skin, or because they believed he would deliver the goodies...like free cell phones.

I'm ashamed that our First Amendment rights are under assault from political correctness....that our Second Amendment rights are being attacked so viciously by the Progressive statists...and most people just shrug and say, "What are you gonna do?"  I'm ashamed that no one can seem to recognize any more that if the government can take rights from those you don't like...they can take them from you.

 Yes, I am ashamed of many aspects of the current state of affairs in this great country.  I am ashamed and afraid that my generation and my parent's generation may have allowed the erosion of our liberties to come to a point where they cannot be reclaimed.  That we may be witness to the final demise of the great American experiment in freedom.

What about you?

Aftermath

I'm a bit too shell shocked to go into any real analysis of the election, so I just wanted to get down some of my general thoughts:

• This is now the second presidential election in a row where the Republican party decided it was best to run a "nice" campaign.  They are so kowtowed by the threats of being called racist, that they would not deal directly and firmly with Obama's history and record.  They allowed the Democrats to continue to distort facts with very little response.  This is a complete lack of leadership and the Republican party deserved to lose.
• It seems to me that we have now become a country, as a whole, who is willing to follow Europe down the socialist debt hole toward insolvency.   Alexis de Tocqueville  is credited with saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  We seem to have reached this point.  We no longer ask what we can do for our country, but want only to know what our country can do for us.  We seem to be willing to sell our legacy for free health care, food stamps and Obama phones.
• The nation has reached a state of shallowness and vapidity from which I fear only truly hard times will shake us.  I saw polling information that said something like 43% of those responding to exit polling said that President Obama's handling of the hurricane Sandy disaster was "very important" to their decision.  This is absolutely astounding...and more than a little distressing...to me.  That someone could, after four years of broken promises, failed policy and nonexistent leadership, see the President acting "presidential" in a brief, staged photo-op after a storm and think that made him a good president is incomprehensible.  The fact that the response of the Federal government has been less than stellar since then means nothing to the Obama groupies with stars in their eyes.
• Half the country seems to be hopelessly invested in class warfare...just like the Russian people were before the communist revolution...or the Germans before the Nazi take over.  This has caused them to draw stark, black and white lines in their minds.  Corporations are always evil and Unions are always good.  Democrats always acts for the good of the people and tell the truth...Republicans are selfish liars who only care about what's best for them and their Corporate overlords.  The rich have stolen everything they have from the poor. They are blind to the fact that absolute power corrupts, absolutely...regardless of party, occupation or income.  They are easily fooled by 20 second sound bites and focus-group tested tag lines.
•  Facts and details mean nothing to many people.  They will not hear the truth that the largess they vote themselves is financed by trillions of dollars of indebtedness to our enemies.  They will not see that the policies of their chosen representatives have caused the financial woes we have been experiencing.   No discussion of corruption...no discussion of the rule of law moves them.  They mock, scoff at and ignore anything that does not agree with the approved party line...and this is on both sides of the political divide.  When confronted with hard issues, they do not answer them...they will only excuse, obfuscate or ignore them...but never deal with them.  If all else fails, they just blame Bush.
• There are no statesmen left...only power hungry politicians. 
• The Republicans are only marginally better than the Democrats...but we were unwilling to move even incrementally toward smaller, less intrusive government.
• I fear for our future.

Challenge Your Beliefs

Once upon a time, I was a confirmed Neo-Con.  Then I began to read history.  I studied  the founding fathers and principles.  I looked at the history of our government to the present day.  What I realized was that I had a lot of preconceived, and wrong, ideas.  I saw that the Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to big government, centralist policies and solutions.

I am much more of a libertarian or a classic conservative now.  I am not really happy with any party out there...the two major parties or the other, smaller parties.  Have you challenged your own long-held beliefs lately...or ever?  In the video below, Professor Jason Brennan challenges us all to question our beliefs and helps us to know How To Vote Well.

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.

Electoral College Prediction

Okay...I'm going out on a limb and am going to predict a Romney win by 286 to 252 Electoral votes.  The map below, which I created from the Real Clear Politics Create Your Own Map tool, is how I'm calling it as of today.

Analysis from political science professors Kenneth Bickers of Colorado University (CU)-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver actually gives Romney the win with 330.  Their analysis has been applied to all presidential elections back to 1980 and have accurately reflected the actual results of those contests.  Their model gives New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania to Romney, which I give to Obama...an additional 44 Electoral votes.

I believe that the anti-Obama vote has the most motivation...and the more people see of Romney, the more they like him.  In July, Gallup reported that Democratic voting enthusiasm is down sharply from the 2004 and 2008 election cycles.  In October, Forbes reported that one of Obama's biggest challenges was voter apathy.  The Forbes article points to analysis by NBC's Chuck Todd that showed "an ‘across the board’ advantage for Republicans in the enthusiasm race."

No one should take any of this for granted though.  It is highly dependent on voter turn out.  So, if you care about the future of your country:

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Top Priority? Really?

I always tell people in my business life that when everything is a priority...nothing is a priority.  Obama has done nothing positive for any of his many so-called "top-priorities."

Obama in his own words:

Tax the Rich?

I know I have posted several Antony Davies videos, but he is very good at putting debt and deficit issues in very clear perspective.

One thing that Liberals, Keynesians, and Class Warriors of all stripes always ignore is that there are consequences to their policies.  Namely, that higher taxes are a disincentive to business and economic activity in general.  Davies points out that to balance the budget (not reduce the debt) you would have to raise the taxes of the top 5% of Americans to 88%.  This would reduce the average "rich household's" real income to about $36,000/year.  "Making the average rich household worse off than the average household."

Would you, or anyone, continue to work hard to make a lot of money if it were going to be taken from you, redistributed to the less productive, and make you worse off than someone with an average job?  History tells us no.  Whether the pilgrims of Plymouth Colony who became lazy and unproductive in their commune established by the Mayflower Compact, or the Soviet people who had a common saying that "as long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."  Socialism has never worked.  Taking from the rich simply makes the rich less productive...taxing corporations simply passes on the cost to the consumer, who buys less product.  Raising taxes on any activity reduces the activity...which reduces the tax revenue.  Many central planners have been surprised and dismayed, for example, that raising taxes on cigarettes has actually resulted in decreased revenue as some people stop smoking or cut back, and some find other, lower taxed sources.

Here is another great video where Professor Davies shows how ridiculous it is to continue to call for taxing the rich to deal with our deficit   The answer is to CUT SPENDING.  As he says in the last line of the video:

"The budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget."

How Do We Balance The Budget?

Regardless of who wins the upcoming Presidential election, there are hard decisions to be made to avoid a financial disaster in our country.  Federal spending is out of control with no apparent end in site. At the time of this posting the Federal debt exceeds $16 Trillion.  That's:

$16,000,000,000,000

In past posts I have put this kind of debt in perspective (and that was in 2011 when the debt was only $14 Trillion)...I have shown that it is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.  Raising taxes can't fix it, because you could tax corporations and everyone who is considered rich at 100% and still not have enough money to feed the government's spending habit.

Though everyone knows that we have an unsustainable debt problem...that our deficits continue to grow, government continues to expand programs...and therefore spending.  Not only that, but the government has been actively advertising and recruiting to get more people on the roles of programs like food stamps.  Today the Washington Times reported that "Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent."  While welfare programs were cut during the Clinton administration, the Obama administration has been redoubling their efforts to increase this spending.

We are headed in the wrong direction.   I agree with then candidate Obama when he said of the much smaller debt under Bush, "That's irresponsible.  It's unpatriotic." We must first stop the bleeding, and then begin to return to fiscal responsibility and prudence.  This can only happen through a return to the principles of limited and decentralized government.  Come on folks, let's get patriotic again.

Professor Antony Davies has another great video on the issue:

The Sin of Redistribution

Professor Walter E. Williams makes the case that redistribution of wealth by government is theft, and therefore a sin.

Side Effects

I'm always amazed, after hearing the possible side-effects of drugs on the TV commercials, how quick Americans are to swallow pills for nearly any symptom.  I mean, have you paid attention to the legally required fast-talker at the end of any of these commercials?

Symptoms may include drowsiness, dizziness, thoughts of suicide...headaches... diarrhea... nausea...may cause heart damage...liver damage...may result in decreased sex drive.  Call your doctor if you have trouble breathing... sleeping...going to the bathroom..or if it lasts more than four hours.  Don't take this product if you are pregnant...may ever become pregnant...are around anyone who is pregnant.  Rare...but not so rare that we can't mention it...side effects can include hair loss...blindness...stroke...heart attack...or DEATH.

Seriously?  I think, in most cases, I'd rather put up with the original symptoms than risk the kind of side effects I hear on these commercials.  Now, don't get me wrong, I know modern drugs have helped to improve and prolong the lives of millions upon millions of people  Too many times, though, people risk these serious complications for symptoms that are not life threatening, or which could be treated through a lifestyle change...stop smoking...get some exercise...stop eating donuts five times a day...you know, stuff like that.

But, I realize that this is the kind of society we live in now.  Most people want a quick fix.  Just give them a pill that they can pop and let them go on their way.  Many times, they have to take other pills to counteract the side effects of the first pills and before you know it, nobody is sure what is causing which symptom.  I have seen this happen with my own family members, being on so many drugs from different doctors that it causes unforeseen reactions. But, on the whole,we as a society continue to blindly trust our health to the pills and potions dispensed by our doctors...regardless of the possible side effects.  But really, wouldn't most of us be better taking less drugs and understanding all of the possible side effects and interactions of what we do take?

I have also come to realize that this same societal propensity for the quick-fix pill has given us our current state of all-invasive government.  When we see something we don't like, some perceived injustice, immorality, or even just an inconvenience, we too often turn to government for a quick fix.  Over the years, too many have come to trust elected officials as they do doctors...without questioning, trusting that that their council and prescriptions must be what's best.  Unlike doctors though, government's prescriptions -- laws, taxes, regulations, fines, programs and pork -- don't just affect those seeking symptom relief, but spills over onto all of society.

The United States of America was founded by people who rebelled against an overreaching, tyrannical government.  They saw that, as George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  These founders sought to decentralize and limit government to it's bare minimum required to allow people to live in a civil society.  The big debate during the Constitutional Convention was between those who wanted a very limited central government (the Federalists) and those who wanted an even more limited government (the Anti-federalists).  They realized that there was a place for government, but that it should be used as a last resort and as little as possible for the over-all health of society.

Today, though, many see government, like pills, as the first recourse for nearly any perceived ill in society...seemingly with absolutely no regard for possible side effects.  The side effects and interactions of government are not rare and are very detrimental to the health of society and liberty.  Let's look at just a couple of examples of side effects of government:

As laws are the main prescription dispensed from the government apothecary, many citizens believe that the main job of their representatives is to churn out new laws.  There are thousands and thousands of laws on the books with new ones being passed every year.  Most of these laws have penalties for those who break them.    Penalties typically consist of fines or incarceration.  Every new law creates potential for people to break them...and therefore new enforcement.  A side effect of so many laws is the high rate of incarceration we have in this country, higher than all of the other developed countries in the world...combined.  With only 4.5% of the world's population, we imprison 23% of the world's prisoners.  Ask yourself, is this because America is such an evil den of criminals?   Are we worse than China...than Russia?  Are we on the verge of some dystopian collapse or is it that the thousands and thousands of laws we have on the books provides huge opportunity for the use of government force?  John Stossel has a great program on the subject called Illegal Everything.

What about the laws that are made to help people?  Surely these are okay, right?  Well, let's look at one of government's attempts to help people.  Back in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the government said it was just unfair that everyone wasn't able to own their own home.  President Clinton launched The National Homeownership Strategy which spawned the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1994 to encourage more lending in poor and minority neighborhood (article on details).  To make a long story short, government meddling, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the banks to offer loans to families that they wouldn't have normally been able to afford.  This meant demand for housing went up, and with increased demand there is increased pricing. Raising prices caused real estate speculation to raise.  Government then strong-armed the banks to increase level of lending and create more favorable terms to allow families to cope with the rising costs.  This all caused the housing bubble that eventually burst and was a major cause of our current economic woes.  The end result is that the very people the law was intended to help were hurt the worst...along with the rest of the country.

Loop holes are a side effect of the interactions of laws.  It seems that no sooner than a law is passed, there are people lobbying congress for relief from aspects of the law that caused new, undesirable symptoms.  Politicians, of course, are more than happy to offer new laws or adjustments for the proper...ah, remunerations to their reelection funds.  The latest example of this is the hundreds (about 1200 to be exact) of companies who lined up and received exemptions from Obamacare.  

If we accept the truism that "power corrupts," it should also be noted that power emboldens.  As we have ceded more of our power to the politicians and trusted them to always make the right decisions for us, they have become like physicians with a god complex.  At least doctors are well trained and tested to perform their roles.  Politicians need only convince people to vote for them to get their jobs.  Being elected does not make them an expert in anything, but they increasingly act as if they know what's best for us and will inflict their will on us whether we agree or not.  The passage of Obamacare is a good recent example of this side effect also.  We were told that we just didn't understand the issues...that we had to pass the law before we could know what was in it.   Over the stringent protests of a majority of the American people, in an act of supreme arrogance, the Democratically controlled Congress, lead by Reid and Pelosi, passed the largest tax hike in the history of the country in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

These are just a few examples of the side effects of an overreaching government.  Multiply this by the thousands and thousands of laws, regulations and policies that are inflicted on us by government.  Don't get me wrong, though I lean very heavily libertarian, I do believe there is a place for government.  I just believe, as the founders did, that it should be dispensed sparingly with great care and with close attention to possible side effects:

Government: CAUTION, possible side effects include incarceration, high taxation, over regulation, bankruptcy, market bubbles, loop holes, corruption, huge debt, deficits and a general loss of liberty.

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.

Defeat of Special Interests

(Updated: 6/8/12)

The victory of Governor Scott Walker in the recall election in Wisconsin was a resounding defeat of special interests.  That's right, one of the biggest special interest groups in the country was soundly rejected...labor unions, and public service unions in particular.  The People of Wisconsin, in large numbers, turned out to reject the ridiculous recall attempt waged by the unions in the state.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 11.8 percent of all workers nationally belong to a union.  In Wisconsin, the number is about 13.3 percent.  Looking at union membership by sector, it is even more interesting.  The percentage of all private sector employees that belong to a union was only 6.9% in 2011 compared to 37% of all public sector workers.  Union membership has been falling for years.  In fact, The New York Times reported that union membership has fallen to "the lowest rate in more than 70 years."  The vast majority of Americans are not in a union and don't want to be in one.  And so, they really don't care about the unions.

Even the politicians, it seems, don't seem to see the union issues of key importance, as noted in an article in Mother Jones:

"In an interview, an official with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin downplayed the importance of the anti-union provisions in Walker's 'budget repair' bill in the Democrats' broader recall strategy. 'Collective bargaining is not moving people,' says Graeme Zielinski, a Democratic Party spokesman. And in the party's new strategy memo for defeating Walker, there's little mention of collective bargaining or organized labor in the Democrats' messaging plans."

But while unionism is on the decline, union special interest groups continue to be some of the largest donors to national political candidates.  According to National Review Online, "the biggest 'outside group' spenders in the 2012 elections aren't oil and gas companies, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, or hedge funds. No, as reported by the Associated Press, the biggest spender in the 2012 elections will likely be Big Labor."  In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the biggest forces behind the Walker recall effort, is the third all time largest donor, with 92% of their funds going to Democrats and only 1% to Republicans.  In the 2008 election cycle alone, AFSCME was the 6th largest donor.  The National Education Association (NEA), another public sector union, was the largest.

What does this mean, in real terms.  Public sector workers contributing money to politicians is a conflict of interest.  Think about it.  If this happened in the private sector, it would be illegal.  If employees gave money to get their bosses promoted, then expect favorable treatment in return, everyone would be fired at least.  Steve Huntly of the Chicago Sun Times describes the issue this way:

"Collective bargaining for government employees can never survive much scrutiny. Their unions are by their nature in conflict with the interests of taxpayer. Unions use their numbers, their voting booth clout and their members’ dues to elect politicians who then return the favor in contract negotiations. Liberal good government types constantly advocate bans against government contracts for businesses that make significant campaign contributions to politicians. But they fall silent on the inherent conflict of interest in labor contracts negotiated by public employee unions and the politicians they help elect. Talk about a corrupt bargain — that’s the very definition of one.

Taxpayers have grown weary of financing generous benefits that most of them never see in their lives. President Barack Obama must recognize that voter attitudes on this are changing. Despite the appeals of Wisconsin Democrats for a big show of support, the closest Obama came to Wisconsin was flying over the state recently on his way to a fund-raising dinner in Minneapolis." 

Wisconsin was on the verge of insolvency.  Scott Walker said he was willing to do what was necessary to fix the problem.  He was elected by the people of Wisconsin.  He did exactly what he said he would do...stand up against the outrageous demands and costs of the public unions.  The economy and budget have begun to improve.  The unions did not like the results of the election because it threatened their power in the government.  They organized the recall effort with much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how terrible Walker was for the working men and women of Wisconsin.  But, those same working men and women turned out to reject their special interest, class warfare rhetoric.

 Neither labor unions or crony capitalists should have undue influence on government through their ability to buy favor.  The American people are waking up.  They are seeing through the media fog.  Scott Walker's victory was a clear blow against the public sector union special interests.  Let's hope this trend continues and voters continue to look past the special interests and vote for the best interest of their States and Country.

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?

The Debt from Two Perspectives

The videos below look at the National Debt from two different perspectives...and both of them are bad news.

In the first video, Professor Anthony Davies of Duquesne University looks at how long it takes for the government to run out of money in a given year.  The government collects $2.2 Trillion in revenues and spends $3.8 Trillion...leaving us to borrow $1.6 Trillion a year.  He goes through the simple math that shows that the government runs out of the money it has collected by 11:59 PM on July 31st.  This leaves 5 months of the year unfunded by revenues.

He then walks through cutting different parts of government and the effect it would have on balancing the budget.  He cuts everything but entitlements and debt interest payments and it still does not balance the budget. As he puts it, "In other words, we can reduce the Federal government to nothing more than a glorified assisted-living facility, and we still wouldn't be able to balance the budget."

In the second video, Jeff Miron of Harvard University starts out his video by saying "Cut entitlements, and then cut entitlements, and then cut entitlements some more."  The reason for this is clear from the chart above.  Spending on entitlements, which has no basis in the Constitution, is more than half of the total budget.  You cannot ignore entitlements and keep the country fiscally viable.

For these reasons alone, we need some serious people in Washington...not the self-aggrandizing power mongers we have there now.  We need true statesmen, like we haven't seen in decades, to deal with a very serious problem that threatens our country's entire economy and our standing  in the world.

D or R...Government Keeps Growing

Jack Hunter nailed it again.  This is what I'm talking about...and why I'm not very hopeful that the next Republican president will really offer much in the way of solutions.

The chart on the left illustrates what Mr. Hunter is saying in the video below...namely that government grows no matter who is president.  It also doesn't matter who runs Congress.  It always grows.

This is why we must look to the States to reign in the out-of-control Federal government by nullifying any Federal law that is beyond the Constitutional power of the central government.  We must also ween the States from the Federal teat...refusing to take Federal money as a bribe to knuckle under to Federal usurpation of State power.

Don't get me wrong....we must defeat Obama!  He is on the verge of the single largest peace-time power grab in the history of the country.  He must be booted out.  But, the Republican party has become the "just not quite as big government as the other guys" party.  They are still big government...still power mongers.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Posts:

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows:
Why Feed the Pig?
Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

It's the Debt, Stupid!

Professor Anthony Davies of Duquesne University recently put together this informative video for LearnLiberty.org about the dangers of too much national debt.  As you watch it, remember that President Obama asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt within the past year.



Related Posts:
Budget Cuts Across The Board

It's Simple Math

Bill Whittle has recently posted another very insightful video in his Afterburner segment on PJTV.com. He points out that President Obama, while being touted as the smartest man ever to hold the office, doesn't seem to be able to do simple arithmetic.   The mounting debt we face is unsustainable, and yet Obama has asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt.

As Whittle puts it:

"We're just gonna have to face the arithmetic.  All the money in the world is gone!  It's been pillaged by the weak-willed, power hungry elitists who have stolen it to buy votes and stay in power.  That's the arithmetic."

While he does not believe it will be as bad as past collapses, we will have to pull together, tighten our belts, sacrifice some things we now think are important, and work through it together. "You are the people that's going to get this country, and the rest of the world, out of this mess...not our leaders...not our celebrities...not political pundits and talking heads.  You are...you and me...all of us."



Related Posts:
The National Debt in Perspective
The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine