Joshua James Brown.com

Muslims Attacked Us?

2010-10-22T06:00:00.001-07:00

Was it "Muslims" who attacked us on 9/11?

Bill O'Reilly said so, and two of his four hosts walked out on him. Juan Williams expressed that he was anxious when he sees people wearing Muslim garb in an airplane, and was very publicly fired for it.

To understand this issue, I think you need perspective. Saying "Muslims attacked us on 9/11" is like saying "Christians terrorized black people after the Civil War." As a Christian, I would be deeply offended if someone said that the Ku Klux Klan was a "Christian" organization, simply because they waved Bibles and used a cross as a symbol. In my view, they weren't Christian or even extreme Christians. They were a complete perversion, abusing the good name of religion for an evil purpose.

The middle east is seeing much the same thing. The region is going through incredible growing pains right now. I believe the US went through a similar period during the 1860's through the 1960's. Modernization is very difficult and it takes time. There are always those who will violently fight against it.

The United States is a relatively peaceful country, outside of our inner-city ghettos. We don't want the growing pains of the middle east coming over here. However, its absurd for us to expect that it wont, when we have a major military and industrial presence over there. Our two options are to withdraw or fight it.

I think our philosophy must be to withdraw where we can, and fight where we must. Afghanistan is a job that needs to be finished. Iraq is pretty well wrapped up now. Our main approach must be to set a good example. Jealously of our rights and liberty will do more to advance the middle east than anything else. We have seen this happen in Russia before. Similar to the Cold War, our most effective tool will be satellite tv.

As for political correctness and Juan Williams--what Williams said is a view shared by people across the world. Americans were shocked by 9/11 and obviously don't like to be put in any situation resembling 9/11. Liberals are very conscious of the history in America of discrimination. They are afraid that such fears could trigger discrimination and that is legitimate. But this liberal fear should not manifest itself in an outright visceral hatred of views they don't agree with. Juan William's firing was wrong.

There's a big difference between being polite and ignoring facts. The middle east is full of waring factions. Civil wars throughout the middle east are to be expected during this period. And with our involvement in those battles, it is reasonable to be anxious of people who may come to the US from that region. However, we must be very careful to distinguish between perversions of Islam and the billions of peaceful Islamic people throughout the world.

But with the thousands of Americans who die through domestic violence, disease and accidents--I think you have to put the issue in perspective. Only around 2500 people have died in the US due to international terrorism, and about 2100 of those were on 9/11. Compare that to the 40,000 Americans who die yearly due to car accidents. Only a handful of the billions of Muslims in this world practice any kind of violence. An American is far more likely to die in a car accident than anything else.

As for violence, our extraordinary drug-related violence is far more of a threat than people driven by perversions of Islam. Lets focus on our own civil wars first. I'm more worried about getting shot by drug dealers walking downtown Columbus than having my airplane hijacked while I'm flying. Although both are serious problems that must be addressed, lets have some perspective.

The Irony Behind the NAACP & Tea Party Racism

2010-07-12T06:48:00.000-07:00

The NAACP is considering a resolution condemning "Tea Party Racism." Click here for the story.
They say, ""I think a lot of people are not taking the tea party movement seriously, and we need to take it seriously," said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City chapter of the NAACP. "We need to realize it's really not about limited government" and "all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era."

These comments are extraordinarily ironic, considering the Tea Party movement would encourage, not only the U.S. to get back to its constitutional roots, but also for the NAACP to get back its roots as well.

When the NAACP first began, its mission was to help counter Jim Crow laws. (Click here , here, and here for informational stories). Jim Crow laws were a reaction to private businesses that were NOT segregating blacks. When the government acted, through Jim Crow, to mandate such segregation. The NAACP was a group of (what we would now call) libertarians who wanted to protect the right of private business not to discriminate. That's right. The original NAACP was all about property rights.

What a shame that the NAACP so often uses its former credibility as a crutch today, in the interest of pure politics. It is now a liberal/progressive advocacy organization, rather than a sincere civil rights organization (of course, they would not make that distinction). In their view, everything they don't like is racist.

Civil rights does not equal progressivism. In fact, it the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, as imperfect as they are, are still the greatest civil rights documents of all time. As Martin Luther King said, it was not that the U.S. lacked the right values, but rather that it failed to live up to the "true meaning of its creed."

For them, leftist policies are their goal. Race-baiting is their weapon. I understand why black people moved to Democrats in the 1960's, after almost a century of being Republican. Republicans dropped the ball in the 1960's pretty badly. But arbitrarily labeling someone a racist, especially from the pulpit of a traditionally genuine organization like the NAACP is the height of irresponsibility.

However, associating one's race with a particular collectivist ideology is not the answer. Becoming a tool of the Democratic party cheapens the Civil Rights movement. And saying that a legitimate social movement isn't really what it says it is, is just political opportunism.

All these baseless and ridiculous allegations do is further polarize people. If somebody is making a legitimate argument, and you say "well, you're really just a big racist," then you lose the argument. Drawing on a prejudice that only exists on the far left does little to convince everybody else, and further enrages and encourages the Tea Party to makes its point more forcefully, drawing off the logical weakness of the opposition, hence the sense of inevitable success.

"Stimulus" in Pelosi's Dictionary

2010-07-05T17:22:00.001-07:00

This is the beginning of a series of blogs I will do about definitions of terms within the Democratic Party. For starters, I'll discuss the word "stimulus."

At about the 2:40 mark in this video, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dives into an argument that unemployment benefits are economic stimulus. For people who are not lost in the fog of the far left, these statements have become somewhat of a joke recently.

This comes as no surprise though, coming from someone who argued that contraception is an economic stimulus. It seems everything Pelosi likes is economic stimulus!

What Pelosi does here, is the same thing Democrats have been doing for a while, namely, testing the waters to see how much they can get away with. The effort here is to base the U.S. economy in imaginary economic principles. So here, I discuss some real economics.

In the real world, a strong economy is built on every individual's productive capacity, i.e. our ability to add value to society. "Value," in this context, is measured by people's willingness to trade money for the activity. This can be through exchanging money for goods, such as making boards of wood into cabinets, or services, such as making corporate management boards into more efficient managers. Like anything else, sometimes value is added by investment; but sometimes value is added by divestment. In other words, my law firm may add value by adding another lawyer...or possibly by firing a few.

Unemployment benefits merely move money from point A to B, with substantial overhead (i.e. a kickback to public sector labor). There are benefits and detriments, and for honest progressives, the argument is that the detriments are worth it...not that detriments are actually benefits! The benefits are that you minimize the costs of switching to more productive work. The detriment, is that people who are already productive, have to give up some of their fruits to accomplish this.

But more generally with unemployment, the incentives are exactly the opposite of perfect (where working is rewarded, and not working is detrimental). First, unemployment takes the fruits out of the hands of people who produce value. It then distributes that value to those who are not producing, with a large chunk going to bureaucratic overhead.

Bureaucratic overhead is little more than a drain on society, and should be reduced as much as possible. As for those who are not producing (i.e. the unemployed) we should be benevolent, but careful and prudent. The goal is to ease their transition into productive roles--as opposed to helping people maintain counter-productive roles. This is not meant as an insult, but common-sense.

There is an economic principle called diminishing returns. Too much help is counter-productive. If someone is drowning and 20 people swim to save that person, not only to you fail in finding a solution, you also create a bigger problem.

Hence, the Democratic Party. If someone is unemployed "by no fault of their own," then we all benefit if something is done to keep them from drowning, because of the moral issue, and also as they come ashore they will produce for us all.

Democrats like to feed off emotions. We all hate that feeling we get when someone needs help, and we cannot do anything. Democrats virtual party slogan is "we cannot just sit by and do nothing; something is better than nothing." It may feel good, but not only is this simple statement patently absurd, but it is also dangerous, as illustrated above. Often, less is more.

Welfare benefits can never strike this balance perfectly. Although its often justified, the accusations of greed that Pelosi so gratuitously doles upon corporate America, should sometimes be reserved for scammers and bums who inevitably will take advantage of a welfare system. Most of us know somebody who will work hard just to get welfare benefits...so hard in fact, that they would make great small business people if they would redirect their efforts in that direction.

It is no insult to say that people respond to the incentives created for them. And it is no surprise to anyone, that all politicians use welfare as political badminton, as a result of their own political incentives. Democrats would have you believe that they are compassionate, and Republicans are cruel and heartless. For Pelosi, it is a mere distractions that her characterizations ignore what Republicans have done for unemployment, and the specific reasons why Senators like Sen. Bunning obstructed specific unemployment legislation. But beyond that, what's more compassionate: spending recklessly in the name of compassion, or disciplining compassion so that it is not wasted?

The unemployment system should focus on minimizing transition costs for legitimately honest working people; while minimizing overhead and weeding out the bums and scammers. Undisciplined strokes of compassion with others people's money, are neither virtuous, nor admirable acts.

We have a right to earn an honest living, through voluntary exchanges--not a right to other people's money, by force of government. The former is a God-given right. The latter is a luxury.

If Pelosi is so compassionate, why doesn't she forego her disproportionately lavish travel expenses, such as her private government jet and her office rental in San Fransisco (the rent of which recently shot from $6,000 a month to $18,000 a month). I imagine some unemployed people could use that money.

These are merely the academic responses to Pelosi's absurdity. Absurdity that is, in my view, unbecoming a Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. The real motive for Democrats is to take credit for sending checks to as many people as possible, in an effort to gain political favor.

Newt Gingrich has proposed conditioning unemployment benefits on enrollment and good standing at either school, or some volunteer work at an organization, such as a church or non-profit. I wonder how heartless Democrats would find such a proposal?

Meet the Democrat's New Constituency: The Unemployed

2010-07-01T06:08:00.001-07:00

Lately, I have seen the Democrats crying foul constantly, because Republicans are adverse to voting for extensions for federal unemployment benefits.

It seems the unemployed have become the Democrat's new constituency. They now see it as their job to take money from income earners and redistribute it to those who are not working--making no distinction between those justifiably unemployed and not, following no rules (not even their own), and accepting no boundaries.

The first major example was Sen. Jim Bunning (R. Ky) who blocked an extension months ago. He was attacked relentlessly by Democrats, despite offering a perfectly legitimate explanation, (which mainly was that his obstruction didn't really change anything one way or the other and that the manner of extension violated the Democrat's own "paygo" rule). Recently, the attacks continue.

There are plenty of unemployed people who are truly working hard to get back on their feet and find new jobs, and I have no problem with some redistribution to help them, because helping them helps everybody. However, the research shows clearly, that unemployment welfare prolongs unemployment. Therefore, policy makers may have to actually think a little bit before acting viscerally and blindly to always extend unemployment benefits.

However, are we even surprised? Since the Democrats treat the unemployed as their constituency, they have an incentive to keep people unemployed as much, and as long as possible. In fact, this hearkens back to a long argued point--that Democrats use welfare benefits to keep people needy, purposefully, while they hold themselves out as the champions of the needy. Recently, Michael Barone laid out a strong article, showing the British history of why only those with property were originally given the right to vote--mainly because they knew that those without property would vote to take property from those who had it. Barone's argument was that the US never had such a problem because most people, even the poor, owned property. So therefore, US citizens have always been less likely to vote to redistribute property.

We see this problem persist in unemployment benefits. The Democrats encourage high burdens on business, whether that be through straight taxation or high regulatory compliance costs. This drives up unemployment because it makes jobs more expensive, and the expense of jobs more unpredictable. When something is more expensive, there is less of it. This is why the US had high unemployment throughout the FDR presidency, and why unemployment remains high today.

Once they drive up unemployment, they then hold themselves out as the saviors of the unemployed. They wag their fingers at Republicans for objecting to the whole cycle.

But even Republicans relent on this issue far more than they get credit for. For example, in the recent unemployment extension battle, Republicans proposed a bill that would have extended unemployment benefits with TARP funds, but Democrats would not vote for it.

This is part of a larger pattern for Democrats. They use poll-tested-rhetoric that we all can be comfortable with, for example "helping the needy," or "taxing only the rich." However, "the needy" seem to become virtually anybody, and so do the rich. For example, if you make over $250,000 and you lost your home through mortgage foreclosure by taking a loan you couldn't afford. In this case, given your income, the Democrats have designated you as "the rich," upon which, you are a distributor of wealth, in their redistribution of wealth schemes. At the same time, you are "needy" because you "lost your home through no fault of your own," and in this case, you are a distributee.

And the examples abound. It seems the definition of who is rich and needy grows and grows.

I would propose that we be more disciplined in defining our terms. Just because something bad happened to you, does not make you needy. Some people are unemployed and temporarily need some help, but some others are just taking advantage of the system. Democrats have been feeding off of American generosity for a long time, and the people are starting to see that its being taken advantage of for their party's greed.

Tea Party Fizzles?

2010-06-12T18:28:00.001-07:00

The Washington Post ran a story today, speaking about how the Tea Party movement is allegedly fizzling, because it cannot coalesce around a central leader, and the candidates it has won with in these primaries, are seen as too extreme. It specifically refers to Sharron Angle and Rand Paul.

Wow. What a joke. The Tea Party movement wins primaries across the country, one after the other and the two candidates mentioned are ahead!! Angle is leading by 11 points and Paul is ahead by around 25 points. Not to mention the other champions we have out there, like Marco Rubio. Sarah Palin just endorsed several winning candidates across the country.

And you tell me its fizzling? You gotta be kidding.

Granted, it is yet to be seen how we perform in the general election. The Democrat's approach is clear--continue demonizing the Tea Party movement. Call them racist. Call them nuts. Try to make it look like its the 1960's and they are a bunch a segregationist.

This approach will not work. First of all, the Democrat's message in this regard, is wrong, both morally and as a matter of fact. Most people still support the movement, and that's why the more you mischaracterize it and the more you mock it...the stronger it gets. They're not just putting the Tea Party on the defensive--they're putting the voters themselves on the defensive.

Good luck with that Democrats!

The Craziness of the Constitution

2010-06-11T07:34:00.000-07:00

Harry Reid has set about a campaign based on framing his opponent, Sharron Angle, as being outside the main stream. We're seeing the same tact with Rand Paul and, in fact, the whole Tea Party movement. It would seem there are a lot of "crazy" people out there! One thing these leftist have to realize is that when they make fun of certain views that are shared by a lot of people, they create an enormous problem for themselves. The more they mock and mischaracterize the Tea Party, the more powerful it becomes.

But alas, this has become a typical strategy of progressives, although decreasingly effective. So lets address it.

Many people want you to think that you are crazy if you are principled. They want you to think that pragmatism and the realities of politics demand compromise. This is bunk. The best politicians are the ones who, when a bill is immoral or wasteful, vote "No" even if everybody else votes "yes." Sharon Angle is this kind of politician.

There is a concerted effort to paint anyone who believes in Constitutional government as impractical, and even crazy.

The Constitution limits the power of the government. When politicians get into positions of power, they often want more power--especially progressives. Therefore, they see the Constitution as an obstacle to what they want. So they'll say that the Constitution makes us less safe, or perpetuates racism, or prevents helping the poor. And for people who champion the Constitution, the effort is often to marginalize them, and characterize them as people who are an obstacle to progress.

However, the Constitution creates a framework, by which progress happens by consensus building, without abandoning certain principles. It sets up a free society, with such principles as checks and balances and division of power, and individual and minority rights. Progress can and must occur, but it must occur within that framework. Otherwise, the consolidation of power undermines morality, social stability and sustainability.

History is overwhelmingly clear about this point: that it is the consolidation of power that undermines progress, makes us less safe, perpetuates racism, and prevents us from helping the poor. Constitutionalists are often for helping the truly needy, and vigorous government activity in keeping us safe and enforcing individual and minority rights. But there is a concept called "diminishing returns." When politicians are over-empowered, for whatever excuse, the scope of that which includes progress grows to extraordinary levels, requiring enormous funds. Benevolence soon becomes monopoly, cronyism, favoritism and corruption. Hence, we get a government with a $13 trillion deficit, over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, where every taxpayer owes $117,000 as their share of the national debt alone, and owes an enormous tax burden on top of that.

The progressive movement of the 20th century went a long way to addressing many of the deficiencies in our society. This is why I recently wrote that progressives are intellectually trapped in the 1960's. However, what is really out of the main stream is when somebody wants to turn that movement into government run healthcare, Cap and Trade, 13 trillion in debt, and undermine property and economic rights.

Most people in America don't want any one person to have too much power, whether that be private or public actors. The Constitution is not perfect, but it helps set up such a system. Many of us are fighting for this cause. Trying to argue that being anti-status-quo and fighting for Constitutional government, equals "out of the main stream" is wrong. Also, personal character attacks are often wrong as well.

I'll admit that every politicians usually has some explaining to do when they first get introduced to the pubic, and Angle is no exception. In fact, her stubborn refusal to cooperate with her colleagues in Nevada, may even require some extra explaining. I personally love this about her, but I realize the public wants an explanation.

But Harry Reid is about to lose this election, because he and his crew in Washington D.C. are the ones who are really out of the main stream.

As a sidenote, lets address the politics of the moment. The Huffington Post and some of the specific arguments put out there by the left are already circulating. These leftist organizations and Harry Reid's campaign must be viewed for what they are: the best possible argument they can make against Angle, and for Reid. American politics is based on an adversarial process. Its just like a court of law: you try to characterize your opponent and control the perceptions of the jury. But just like any court, you have to listen to both sides before jumping to conclusions. You must also understand that neither side is a balanced view of the issue--rather, it is the strongest argument for either side, often not made fairly at all. There are some particular arguments floating around, and all anyone can ask is to hold judgment till the other side has its chance. The same goes for the arguments against Harry Reid.

College Football Is All About Money...And It Should Be!

2010-06-10T15:59:00.000-07:00

The person in this video complains that college football is all about money, with regards to the recent realignment activity. He thinks the college presidents are greedy and that it is hurting someone...although he doesn't really mention specifically who it hurts. This is typical someone who doesn't understand economics.

Here, we see a classic fallacy: that doing things "for the money" is necessarily a bad thing. Most of the good advancements and innovations that occur in society are done for the money. We often think of "money" as being this very shallow thing, and in a lot of ways it can be. However, money also represents value. It represents the value we recieve for the value we give. So, although money itself can be quite shallow, what it represents can be quite deep. One must always remeber, even that depth is not worth certain prices. But one could just as easily say, the football conferences are "doing it for the value" of it. An institution does not get more money by stealing it or simply printing it (except the U.S. federal government).

Institutions make money by exchanging something for it. In the case of college football, they exchange the product of football and all the products associated with it. People give money for it, because they want the product. In order to get more money, the schools have to offer more in exchange. The realignment activity is about each school putting themselves in a better position to offer more value, and to get more value. Although the direct motive, of say Texas moving to the Pac 10 Conference, is to make more money, the long term result is that the fans get a better product, and the school gets more exposure and opportunities. Its a win-win situation for everybody and that is why there is more money in it. Money merely represents the value added.

Doing things to make money is good when one gets money by offering a product that people need or want, and voluntarily exchanging it for money. The unintended results are beneficial for everyone. This is how virtually every advancement in society is made, including medicine, services and goods for the poor, and engineering. And this is how college sports are advancing currently.

This isn't necessarily "greed" until the institution is willing to hurt others in the process. When someone is willing to step over other people to make more money, then you have a problem. However, that problem is to be taken for granted in society. It always has existed, and always will. The question is to what rules will govern this behavior.

There is some greedy activity going on with the college football realignment, and this subject isn't getting much attention. The big conferences want to solidify their status, and not be challenged anymore by the small guys like the Boise States and Utahs of the world. They lost a lot of money to these small programs in recent years and have been embarrassed by them a few times. My critique is that this conference realignment isn't fair to the smaller conferences like the Mountain West and WAC, which have worked hard to grow.

When you make money within a fair playing field, there is no complaint. But when you make money in an unfair, monopolistic system, while elimminating competition, this is a problem. This is how self-interest is different from selfishness (i.e. greed). This is not only problem in college football, but in many aspects of society.

You'll notice the parts of college football that involve competition (i.e. the competition between the BCS conferences) tends to be extraordinary and tends to change for the better constantly. All the while, this element retains its traditions and history. However, the parts that destroy competition (i.e. the lack of competition between the BCS conferences and the non-BCS conferences) tends to be unfair and of low quality.

The big college football conferences have always competed on unfair terms. The fact that they have been getting beat occasionally anyway has been extremely fun to watch. But they are now realigning to eliminate that problem. Again, we see an example of what I stated: the competition between the big schools improves and the competition involving the bigs/smalls gets worse.

The fact that these colleges are pursuing greater profits is wonderful thing, because they will do so by providing a better product. However, the rules do need some tweaking, as to keep the schools in smaller conferences from being unfairly competed against.

Ladies Night for Republicans

2010-06-09T06:33:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to all the victors in yesterday's Republican primaries. One thing is for sure--Tea Party candidates are dominating.

Clearly, the ridiculous claims by progressive media, like MSNBC and the NY Times are not sticking. Also, it seems clear that people want to clean out all the establishment politicians, and replace them with independent, dependable conservatives.

I strongly supported Sharron Angle for the Senate in Nevada. She is a strong, outspoken Constitutionalist Conservative. Now she is going up against Harry Reid (need I say more?). It is expected that Reid's campaign will try to paint her as crazy and out-of-the-mainstream. This is in keeping with the liberal media's general portrayal of views they don't like. Of course, this tact has been backfiring like crazy for progressives lately. People are sick of being called racist and extremist for holding traditional American values. You can visit Angle's website and donate here.

I also have been a supporter of Nikki Haley for many years. She is a very dependable conservative in South Carolina. She was forced into a run off, but she is pretty much assured a victory. South Carolina requires at least 50.1% of the vote, or they have a run off. In a four way race, Haley came in with 49%, and her nearest competitor got 21%. The runoff election is in 2 weeks. You can visit her website and donate here.

Next is Carly Fiornia in the California Senate race. I am not sure about her politics, but she has some strong conservative credentials and the assurances of Sarah Palin. The great thing about her victory is that it is yet another blow to the Republican establishment. They supported another candidate, while the Tea Party supported Fiornia. Fiornia is going up against Barbara Boxer, who is an establishment progressive. It is quite easy to dispise Boxer, not only for her politics, but also she is known for being quite arrogant. You can visit Fiornia's website and donate here.

I couldn't help but notice Sarah Palin's influence. She actively supported each of these candidates. Combine this with her other endorsements, such as Rand Paul and others, and it seems she really is carrying some weight.

We Conservative Constitutionalist Republicans have a small coalition in the Senate right now. Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn are carrying the torch. With the additions of Angle, Fiornia, Marco Rubio in Flordia and Rand Paul in Kentucky--we can strengthen the influence.

Things are going very good right now, but the question still remains as to whether we can translate the Tea Party grass-roots movement, from primary victories to general election victories.

Obama: Intellectually Trapped in the 1960's

2010-06-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

Candidate Obama was marketed as a reincarnated 1960's civil rights leader--sort of a cross between Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and Thurgood Marshall; with a dash of Louis Farrakhan on the side.

Progressives cannot get their heads out of this vision of the 1960’s, and this will be their downfall.

Progressives were instantly in love with the man who epitomized their most triumphant period. In keeping with this narrative, they continue to attempt to color their opponents, not as intellectual rivals, but rather as racist segregationists. This worked in the 1960's--after Sen. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he was defeated by a large margin as Republican nominee for president that same year.

But what should we expect from someone who thinks the 1960's civil rights movement translates to progressivism in 2010? Answer: someone who is incompetent and far out of the main stream.

Competence
Obama brings all the incompetence of John F. Kennedy. Some people idolize Kennedy, but he was only president for 3 years. It was Lyndon Johnson who accomplished much of what Kennedy is remembered for. Progressive don't like to talk about President Johnson, because he became so unpopular for lying, escalating Vietnam and his leftist policies.

Progressive don’t like to talk about the real John F. Kennedy either. There are many good things to say about him. But, he was undoubtedly a man with little integrity who had absolutely no idea what he was doing in the White House.

Kennedy had little-to-no experience. He is famous for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it is rarely mentioned that the Russians showed no signs of aggression while Eisenhower was president for 8 years. They perceived Kennedy as weak and intellectually vulnerable, and that is why they started putting missiles in Cuba to start with. Kennedy brought the nation closer to nuclear war than any person in history. This is why I'd rather have a boring old Eisenhower for president, than an Obama any day.

The comparison we see by President Obama's opponents is to President Jimmy Carter, whose handling of the Iranian Hostage Crisis was a public perception disaster. As we are beginning to see, more and more, President Obama is similarly incompetent for this job. Whether it be his dithering on Afghanistan, the "beer summit" situation, or the recent oil spill, the examples abound. He is a great campaigner, but as an executive, he is failing. This came as no surprise to most of us though.

Main Steam Views
I usually don’t criticize people for “being outside the main stream.” Frankly, I think the main stream is often wrong. But I also believe in government by consensus building over time—not dictatorial mandates by self-proclaimed intellectuals.

Progressives had several successes in the 1960’s because they were right about certain things. The country needed to address a host of social issues. The federal government was finally catching up with the rest of the country, which was desirous of government intervention.

However, progressives think that this was the beginning of a movement toward socialism. It was not. Rather, it was a refining process for a country that still fundamentally values individual rights—and does not distinguish between social and economic rights. There was always a tension between freedom and the right to engage in repugnant acts. There always will be. An effort to sort out this tension is not the complete abandonment of private property, as progressive would advocate.

Jesse Jackson said, “you cannot vote against (Obama’s) healthcare bill and call yourself a black man.” This view shows the insane prejudice and bias of progressives. They are trying to sell their prejudice that anyone that disagrees with them is racist. This is because they are sincere in their desire to help the needy. Therefore, anyone who doesn't arrive at their conclusion, must lack this sincerity.

Of course, the problem is that their definition of the "needy" is ever expansive, and generally politically advantageous for them. I always support helping those who are truly needy. However, progressives are intellectually incapable of addressing the biggest issue in 2010: the question of what aspects of 20th century America do we want to retain, and which parts to we want to dispense with?

For them, if abandoning the Constitution a little bit was a good idea, then why not abandon it completely?

Most people in this country are not progressive. In fact, most people don’t like progressive policies. Granted, some are dependent on some progressive programs, and are therefore protective of them. But that wont get progressives very far politically. When your support comes from the net beneficiaries of government spending, you sacrifice the support of those who actually pay for the programs. This is a divisive and ultimately losing battle--as Europe is slowly discovering.

To say that those who oppose progressive are really just a bunch of racist, is so patently ridiculous and offensive, that it is usually not worth discussing. If you cant argue on the merits of your ideas, then you shouldn't talk at all. But this is the Democratic Party narrative.

Their 1960's civil rights President is no Martin Luther King. Rather, he's just actor who plays the part well. In response to the Obama Presidency, there will be no movement. Rather, it is merely a revelation of the shallowness, offensiveness, and unsustainability of the monster that the progressive movement has morphed into. Progressivism is anti-civil rights because it rejects economic rights--not just to curtail racism, which is justified--but also to empower the government on a much broader scale, which is not justified. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Its time to get with the times. We need to dispense with the old guard--Republican and Democrat alike.

People want to retain prohibitions on discrimination—an accomplishment of the progressive movement. But we don’t want to retain the welfare state or the warfare state. We want to retain the fruits of our labor and our property rights. We don’t want a massive mortgage on our children’s earnings anymore. We don’t want to end up like Greece and the European Union. We don’t want the whole country to be run like Chicago and Detroit or California.

I gladly join the anti-incumbent movement going on today.

Liberal Judicial Bias and Prejudice

2010-06-02T06:14:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court has made a recent decision regarding Miranda rights. In this decision, we see further evidence of the persistent bias and prejudice of the Court's liberals. Each of the Court's 4 liberals sided with a convicted murderer of a child, who said his admissions should not have been used against him, because he chose not to speak for 2 hours before admitting to the crime.

Miranda rights are the famous words uttered when one is arrested in America: "you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney..."

The question before the court was whether the accused must affirmatively say, "I want an attorney and to remain silent," or whether the police can question him until he does make such a statement.

In the 1960's, the Court addressed the treatment of prisoners and the accused. There is little doubt today that this was needed. Prison conditions were unacceptable and many people were being incarcerated under highly suspect evidence. However, honest progressives will admit that much of the Court's action in addressing this problem was either flat unconstitutional or judicially legislated additions to Constitutional law. Progressives will argue that this was necessary and justifiable by the morality of the issues and times.

Miranda rights are nowhere in the Constitution. Justice Sotomayor complained that this decision "turns Miranda upside down." However, the question is, who cares? Miranda is really more of a judicially imposed rule of evidence, very loosely rooted in Constitutional doctrine. The Miranda theory is that Constitutional rights are no good unless the suspect is apprised of them. This makes sense to me. The Constitution spends a lot of space granting rights to the accused--clearly, this is important. However, the Court could do away with the requirement altogether, and there would be no Constitutional problem.

"Turning Miranda upside down" is no more unconstitutional than Miranda itself was to start with.

The Problem With the Liberals

The problem with the liberal justices is that they cannot get their minds out of the 1960's. I can understand that they were right about a lot of things then, and conservatives have accepted that. But liberals cannot fathom that the problems we face today are simply not the same. Today, although we certainly have some of the same problems, we also live in a nation where massive efforts have been undertaken to address those problems. Today, we have the new issue to address of which of those efforts to retain and which to dispense with. But the liberals are simply not interested in this debate because they know that they would lose so much of their failed ideas. Therefore, because of their stubbornness and prejudice, decisions like this last one pass them by, without their influence.

In the 1960's, the Court's liberals addressed a real problem. Their intellectual descendants (today's liberals) did not adopt the original liberal's desire to address real problems. Rather, they created and maintain a bias and prejudice that the problems addressed by the original liberals are always present. In fact, some argue that such problems are inherent--justifying their persistent bias. Because of this bias toward particular parties, the liberals have cases decided before they ever even look at them.

Ronald Reagan said that a liberal could not see a fat man standing next to a skinny man, without thinking the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the skinny man. In that spirit, I would assert that if liberal judges really had their way, trials would be about determining the relative affluence and wealth of the respective parties. The weaker party would always win. The merits of the case are a mere trivial pursuit. After all, the Court's job is to balance the inequities of society with its intellectual hand, right?

Instead of this ridiculousness, the Court should seek justice. Justice, to me, is a human sense of fairness and morality. This is why juries decide cases. It doesn't mean that everyone thinks the right outcome came about--that is impossible. It means that everyone knew--or should have known--the rules and that everyone feels like the system genuinely tried to enforce those rules. Whether the rules are fair or not is generally a legislative function. It is often a function for the judiciary, but the judiciary must be modest, and recognize that this is not its primary function, nor is it a function it is well suited for.

Justice is personified by the goddess Themis. Themis is blindfolded. She carries a sword in one hand and the scales of justice in the other. This view is that justice does not care if you are rich or poor, or black or white or whatever. She merely weighs that merits of both sides with her scale and enforces the law with her sword.

The Court's conservatives have accepted many liberal precedents. Miranda is one of them. However, in enforcing Miranda, the Conservatives are weighing the merits of Miranda against the needs of law enforcement. Conservatives have been guilty of a bias toward the state many times. But this Court, under Kennedy's influence has been the great balancer--balancing the Constitution with the mid-20th century progressive precedents which undermined it.

Kennedy has some fidelity to both, but he generally understands this Court's mission is not to turn a progressive precedent into a persistent bias--but rather, to decide which precedents are good, which are bad, and ultimately to uphold his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Hillary Argues for More Leeches

2010-05-28T08:39:00.000-07:00

Update: The CBO released new data concerning who pays taxes. This data supports this article. Click here for the report.

Hillary Clinton chimed in on domestic policy yesturday. She rehashed some old liberal nonsense that the rich are not paying enough in taxes. Here are her comments:

If the video isnt working, click here for it.

Now, after having viewed that, take a moment to look at the truth.

The top 25% of income earners pay 85% of the taxes, while taking in 66% of the income. The top 1% pay 37% while taking in 19% of income. It seems Hillary is already getting her way.
* sidenote: if Hillary really wants to tax the rich more, then she should oppose Social Security, which is a regressive tax--meaning it taxes the poor more than the rich.

The fact is that the economy grows by adding value to things--both rich, middle class and poor. Just like any person adds value to their services by getting further education or experience—or how any car manufacturer adds value to their cars by adding features or improving quality.

The government "taxes" production so that it can provide an environment where production can flourish. This means the government taxes people, so that it can provide ground rules for society, security, and provide public infrastructure among other things. Without these services, there could be no production because nobody could trust that they could retain the fruits of their labors. In such anarchy, there would be no incentive to produce.

However, it must be remembered that taxation is a burden on production as well. When you burden production, you will have less of it—there’s a trade-off here. America's productive capacity can only increase if you burden it less--not more. The government already provides far more rules, security and public infrastructure than anywhere near reasonably necessary, and it wastes most of the rest of the money it gets--whether through reckless spending or just extraordinary brokerage costs. It could easily be argued that government services to the public have gone far beyond the point of diminishing returns.

We're to the point now where most taxpayer's largest liability is their share of the national debt. Its not their house or business or anything productive. Then add their share of national revenues and you'll see that we all already pay far too much! Both the rich AND the middle class (in America, the poor pay little to nothing, in fact many are actually net beneficiaries of the tax code).

Excessive government bureaucracy is a leech on production. In the Hillary-progressive world, you can spend all you want and the government will somehow grow the economy by adding more leeches. Reports have been coming out consistently about how the government sector is growing and is becoming more costly, while the private sector cuts back. The private sector is fiscally responsible because it has to be. The government sector can afford to leech off the private sector, as long as it keeps producing.

In the real world, you have to lessen your burdens on production—i.e. lower taxes to the point where the government is only taking in what it needs to provide its service. You have to refrain from placing liabilities on taxpayers, so that their money can go directly toward productive activity.

To the Law Class of 2010: Be Happy We're In a Recession!!!!

2010-05-06T15:48:00.000-07:00

Here, is a WSJ article talking about how bad us law school graduate of 2010 have it.

This misses a few points. Let me give you some perspective.

First, there was an enormous bubble in big corporate law firms the last few years. We're now seeing the popping of that bubble. But the corporate market, is NOT the entire market.

The best time to get into any market is during the burst of a bubble. There's an old expression that goes, "buy low, sell high." That's really all you need to know--brand new lawyers are as low as it gets. Its time to buy.

For the employer/client--they get you at a discount. Its like any market item--you have to come cheap at first if demand is low and supply is high. However, right now, there's just as much work going around, its just not paying as well, and smaller law firms are getting it. Small law firms, especially those that deal in volume, are booming right now.

This is especially true for people who are starting their own law firms, like myself. I am doing an office-share agreement with a small firm in an area with extraordinary growth potential (Delaware, Ohio).

So I'll have a few attorneys, all with less than 5 years experience, to get me on my feet. Meanwhile, I'll take advantage of the poor market. The poor market will drive customers to my firm, because we'll provide cheaper services, since I am just starting out. When the market grows, those customers and myself will benefit the most. I can charge far more then. Of course, I better save and invest smart, because another recession will hit when I reach the top. Then, my services will be the ones taking the hit, while new rookies undercut me, like I'm presently undercutting other veterans. I'll need something of value to survive.

Being a rookie on my own right now, I am very glad the market is so bad, and I hope it gets worse--because I'll have so many clients, who would normally hire a much more expensive attorney. Its the high income earners who are suffering now--remember "sell high". Well, they're being sold, and we're being bought, albeit at a low price. But as my business grows, so will my price.

Although we (the class of 2010) will all start with lower pay, because we're entering when the market is low, we'll benefit the most when the market recovers--IF we know what's going on. Articles like this WSJ one only serve to help us, by reducing future supply of lawyers.

This idiot whose going to sell records--he'll miss out on the growth--probably because does not understand economics. People who understand REAL economics will always benefit from recessions. The economy grows and contracts. Don't be a progressive and start thinking that recessions should never happen. RECESSION ARE SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! Learn how they work. You just have to know what's going on--you have to know what the shifts and fluctuations are going to be--so that you and your customers can benefit from it.

For those who want to understand more, I recommend reading a book called: "Rich Dad, Poor Dad."

Black Republicans Rise: Civil Rights Does NOT Equal Progressivism

2010-05-05T14:35:00.001-07:00

See the NY Times Black Republicans Referred to in the Post, Article Here

More minorities are rising in the Republican Party. This is, and was always, inevitable. Black skin has never been synonymous with a progressive mind.

The New York Times today published an article noting that 32 black people are making serious runs for Congress. I wasn't sure if I wanted to post this article or not. So instead, I decided to write about it. I didn't want to post it, because I didn't want people to think that I am saying, "see, we're not a bunch of racists, because we have a few black folks joining our leadership." The argument that we were racist is offensive, baseless, and contemptible as a Democratic Party political ploy. Rarely do I dignify it with a response.

Rather, my point is the opposite. We were never racist, but mistakes were made. Republicans were the dominate party among blacks until the 1960's. Because of certain mistakes, especially Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we lost the black voter. But we never lost the general debate. If we would stick to the debate over basic theory, most black folks would inevitably come back to the party, as long as we stick to that argument.

As a matter of basic logic: just because a theory is misused, doesn't mean the theory itself is bunk. Just because some racists use the language of freedom, doesn't mean freedom isn't the right idea. It only means that the idea is being abused.

Often you have to explain this to progressives. Literally, it is a constant cycle with them: I say I believe in the Constitution and the American theories of law, they say, "well that's what all the slave-owners said, and those are the arguments they used to oppress people." After explaining to them that this response is not logical (as explained in the previous paragraph) I then explain that, under American Constitutional theory, the rights wealthy white men enjoyed should be expanded to all people--not taken from all people.

The Civil Rights movement was this effort. When progressives try to pervert this into a movement for socialism--they start losing the debate, and therefore lose their black constituents.

When Republicans stick to our core arguments, we win. When we depart we lose (which the party does far too often). In several elections this year, Constitutionalists Republicans are doing very well so far. A purification effort is ongoing. Incumbents, RINO's (Republicans in name only) and party insiders are struggling and losing. Even John McCain is getting beat in his own primary. In Kentucky, Rand Paul is winning. In Florida, Marco Rubio is winning. And the list goes on. Formerly unbeatable establishment Republicans are facing the kind of defeat that the entire party got in 2006.

It is no coincidence that black Republicans would emerge at the same time. At heart, a message that opposes income redistribution, class warfare, race-baiting, and skirting personal responsibility will always win among people hungry for freedom. Especially after the continued failure of government planning--e.g. the housing projects, affirmative action and others.

The Power of Jealousy
One of the driving forces of a free society is jealousy. The Soviet Union fell, largely because the people were jealous of the west. Capitalism offers a chance--a possibility at happiness. For most, this outweighs government's promises and "guarantees" of social equality and special treatment. Similary, oppressed black Americans were jealous of white people's freedom to earn money--not their money itself. In a famous race-issue case, Clarence Thomas quoted Frederick Douglas as saying,

The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us . . . Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury . . . Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man.
Whole speech here.

Years ago, I read a book called "The Promised Land," which was about the American black migration north in the 20th century. It is clear why black people were forced to bond together as a community. This was due to the evils of many people in American society across the board. At that point, blacks were forced to vote together as a block, to deal with the most fundamental issues of civil rights.

But today, a black middle class is growing. Blacks were never a homogeneous group, but they did share similar interests. Today, they are increasingly independent. They inevitably will express their own ideas and interests. The Constitution protects their rights to acquire and accumulate wealth. How odd it would be, then, if they turned from civil rights to socialism, which completely rejects the concept of "economic rights" or free markets.
sidenote: I put "economic rights" in quotations, because the Constitution makes no distinction between economic rights and social rights. A personal hero of mine, Federal D.C. Circuit Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown, who is a black female from a large, poor, share-cropping family in Alabama, said this about the progressive Supreme Court of the New Deal: "The court drew a line between personal rights and property rights or economic interests . . . Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status. If the right asserted was economic, the court held the Legislature could do anything it pleased . . . With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed."
Quote can be found here.

When I served in the military, I served with and under many black people. I learned how proud they are of their heritage, especially the civil rights era. However, many progressives think the civil rights era was about them. They think that the era was their ideological victory, and that society would soon adapt their way of thinking. They looked forward to a total abolishment of the Constitution and a new era of socialism.

Unfortunately, many black people don't think this is what it is all about. Many think that it is about extending the rights, formerly reserved to the privileged class, to everyone. They are still Christian, conservative and love America. Many actually think the founding fathers had a lot of things rights. I think people like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown may be considered to be pioneers one day. But maybe not, since we don't judge people by their race, for better or worse.

Marco Rubio, who is assured to be the Flordia Republican Party's nominee for Senate, is a perfect example of the future. He is a Constitutionalist Republican, whose parents fled Castro's Cuba to get to America. In a country of immigrants who fled oppression, all individual rights will likely be treasured. Therefore, even among minorities, people like Rubio are likely to dominate the landscape.

If its about politics, Republican lose. We deservedly lost black folks a long time ago, and they will not join us if all we offer is that we are not Democrats. But if its about policy, ideas, and philosophy, and we Republicans stick to our values, we will win the debate. The people will soon follow.

Populist Takes Shots at Tea Party: But Why?

2010-05-03T08:27:00.000-07:00

You can read more about tea parties, and why progressives hate them, here.

Last night I watched a Bill Moyers show, where he covered several groups of protesters. They are a group of, what he calls, "populists" who protest against, what they call "corporations." They appeared to be mainly small farmers and laborers.

These protesters show up to protest about banks, corporate farmers and a number of other "big money" people who they say are taking advantage of them. Moyers said, "this is not the tea party crowd, chanting against government take overs and creeping socialism. They are populist of the old school. They want the government on their side, battling against predatory monopolies, trusts and corporations."

One of the leaders that Moyers interviewed said, "What we feel, is not that we want government completely out of our lives, that's what the tea party people say. They say, 'well we don't want government in our schools, and we don't want government making any health plans for us, and governments too big and it impacts our lives.' Well what we see, is that government needs to impact our lives in certain areas."

The tea party attacks continued throughout, saying that tea partiers are not "real populists," and that they are just confused, misled, front groups for the rich corporations and so on.

My Thoughts
I felt compelled to write about this, because I admire populists. I have always said that people should organize and fight for what they believe in, even if I don't agree with it--and most of the time, I do agree with them. These people epitomize this American spirit.

But I don't agree with many views of populists, because, according to their own words, they are not against the government picking winners and losers in principle--they are just jealous because they are not the winners. They'll tell you straight up, that they think the government should favor them in policy making. They don't think wealthy people deserve to be winners because wealthy people are selfish and greedy and they get that way by taking advantage of the working class.

That is only partially right, but fundamentally flawed. But first, I want to address my amazement at the shots taken at the tea parties.

How can people who claim to be "populists" express such disgust for other people? I'm guessing its probably because they liked it when they were the only ones protesting in the streets. They constantly claim to be "the people," and that argument holds less water when other "people" disagree with them. The tea parties exposed the other, larger, part of America, that support enforcement of the Constitution, and that usually remains silent, except at the ballot box. They don't want favoritism or government's benevolence. Being left alone is quite enough. Taking shots at the tea party, in a show that has absolutely nothing to do with them was unprofessional of Moyers. It merely exposes a lack of tolerance. But I digress.

Now let me discuss the populist's arguments--unlike them, for me, its not personal. It is true that there is all kinds of evil people in the private sector and the government. They seem to think that evil is limited only to the rich "corporations." They say government should represent them and their interests because, they are the true "people."

Well, believe it or not, "corporations" are people too. Saying that they are not people is like saying a flock is not a bird--which is true, but a flock is just a bunch of birds. The word "corporation" is merely a label that represents a tax and liability status of a group of people, doing something they have a God-given right to do: organize to accumulate wealth, by engaging in voluntary exchanges with other people.

But even beyond semantics: millions of people work for corporations, and we all buy stuff from them. The very cloths populist wear, as they scream about corporations, were made and delivered by people acting under a corporate label--very efficiently and at a low cost. People acting within what we call corporations have made virtually every consumer product in America so cheap and accessible, that what we call poor people today, live better than the richest people of a hundred years ago.

And they did it all for profit to get rich and I never could understand what is wrong with that. This meant they could pay their employees out of the proceeds of the money they made, without taxing people against their will. Did they "take advantage" of their workers? Not one corporation ever forced a single individual to work at any place or at any time. It is completely illegal, under the 13th amendment, to force people to work for you. But the populists will say those people just don't know any better. If the workers did know better, they'd go work somewhere else, and unionize, and protest with us, and ect., ect., ect.,. And this gets to the heart of it: progressive populists just don't have respect for other people's opinion. And maybe this is why they felt the government should censor "Hillary: The Movie," saying that "corporations" (i.e. certain groups of people) should not be allowed to speak.

The fact is that virtually every business, large or small, treats its employees just fine. Otherwise, those employees would leave. If employees are not treated right (as defined by the employees themselves) the business cannot survive. In a free market, no exchange takes place unless all parties benefit, because all parties are free to walk away. People should be respected for their ability to make such decisions for themselves. There are a few exceptions, and that is what we should be screaming about. But to demonize the whole group is absurdity and morally wrong.

Governments operate only through coercion and force. We must all partake in its plans whether we like it or not. I always find it fascinating when people claim that the reason the government should force people to partake in something against their will, is because the government should operate for the people, by the people!! What they really mean is: by the progressive people, for the progressive people, whether anyone else likes it or not, because the progressive people say its for their own good.

It is absolutely true that the government has to use force all the time, and that we accept a certain amount and kind of it. We create and enforce laws whether people like it or not. But America has prospered because the Constitution create boundaries on this. One of those boundaries is that the government is not supposed to pick winners and losers. Not that those laws are enforced anymore--but that's what the tea party movement is all about.

Government's employees must be paid by taxing productive people, even if against their will. In doing so, the government is highly wasteful, inefficient and often counterproductive. Government actors are just as greedy and selfish as big corporate interests--the only difference is the corporations satisfy their greed by persuading people to exchange with them. Politicians satisfy it by supporting those who support their political ambitions, and that is why most of their plans benefit the few with the most money and access. You cant change that by convincing the government to be greedy on your behalf.

Instead, the answer is simple: enforce the law of the land, the Constitution. I said I agree with populist most of the time, because the Constitution commands the government to vigorously go after the bad guys--but often, the bad guys are in the government as well.

Another person Moyers interviewed was quoted as saying, "the Preamble to the Constitution says 'promote the general welfare.' Well, does that sound like a government that's hands off, and isn't involved in the overall well-being of everybody in this country? So this idea of 'get government out of our lives,' I don't know how that works because we're supposed to be government of the people, by the people and for the people. So how do I take government out of my life? I am government." (Sidenote: So under this logic, every American "is government" by virtue of citizenship. I agree. But doesn't this mean that the corporate CEO and corporate emloyee is as well? Would you also so proudly proclaim, "Bill Gates is government!" or "The people who run Goldman Sacs are government!" ?) Moyers' other guests also evoked the founding fathers on a few occasions.

This view couldn't be more wrong and ignorant. Selectively quoting the Constitution does not put its weight behind your argument. The Constitution demands that all laws effect all Americans equally--meaning that it forbids the government from picking winners and losers in the economy. A "preamble" merely states the purpose of a piece of law, and is not affirmative law itself. So the purpose of the Constitution (in commanding due process, equal protection, free speech, freedom of religion ect.) is partly, to provide for the general welfare. The idea that the government is actually supposed to generally pick progressives as the winners is beneath contempt.

And this is where populists and tea partiers should find common ground. Instead of mocking each other like Moyers, lets continue the great debate over government's role. You see, we both abhor that the government has developed this dirty relationship with the New York banking establishment. We both hate that they created and maintained monopolistic corporations like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, health insurance companies, the Federal Reserve and others. We both hate that they are bailing out big corporations, while productive people pick up the tab. We should be praising and agreeing with eachother on that.

So Bill Moyers thinks the government should be on his side. And I think that government-corporatism is a necessary consequence of a government that picks ANY winners. But we shouldn't be taking shots at each other, and we should all be protesting together, based on what we agree on.

So the shots taken by Moyers and the populists are out of line. Instead of focusing on the agreement and the sincerity of both groups, he mocks of ridicules those who merely disagree with him. The good thing is that populists have rarely been able to gain a lot of ground in America. It seems everybody else is fine competing and working in the free economy that has provided so much for us, and we don't think select groups should be favored.

American Exceptionalism: Freedom or Power/Affluence?

2010-05-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

I believe my country, America, is exceptional.

However, so did the ancient Romans, the British Empire, and the early 20th century Germans. So what makes us exceptional? The debate seems to be over whether it is our power and affluence, or our law which protects our freedom and liberty? In other words, which would you sacrifice first, your freedom or your powerful government?

I believe that there a few prevalent perspectives put forward in contemporary American life today.

First, is the law and order types
They value physical security and the ability to capture and punish "criminals," as broadly defined as drug-users, undocumented immigrants and gamblers (i.e. victimless criminals). This is just an extension of the view that American power and affluence is superior to freedom, because it takes power and affluence to enforce such law. As we have seen from the War on Drugs, such laws necessarily carve into freedom (see the history of the 4th Amendment, which went from "the right against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated" too "reasonable expectations of privacy").

This leads to a general tendency to always favor the government over the accused and never consider whether the government itself might actually do injustice and cause violence and crime. They fail to see that a free society is one governed not just by the rule of law--but all law, not just some. In America, we have laws which limit the power of government, protect the rights of the accused, and command the prejudice that all are assumed innocent. The Soviet Union had laws which did this as well--they just didn't have a judiciary that could enforce them.

They say you cannot have freedom without enforcement of laws that make you safe--which is true. But you also cannot have freedom without enforcement of laws that make you free. Because the law and order types value affluence and power over freedom, they must be reigned in lest government power be abused.

Second, is the Progressives
They value material equality and (what they call) "social justice" over freedom. They think that society can never be fair to people, so the government should take control and redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. Again, this is just an extension of the view that American power and affluence is superior to freedom, because it takes power and affluence to enforce such law.

This leads to a general tendency to always favor more government power, as if the government can only do good with it. Progressives draw a fine distinction between powerful government that acts for good, and one that acts for bad. But they fail to name one single powerful government in history that acted solely for good. Is there even one government that succeeded in balancing out inequities in society--without making everybody equally poor?

They should realize that people predictably act in their own self-interest. The free market forces private actors to achieve self-interest by volitional exchanges. Government actors achieve their self interest through force and coercion. This is the distinction to focus on.

They say you cant have freedom, while you are worrying about your income--which is true for the truly needy. But the so-called "needy" soon become those who help advance the interests of government officials. It is even more true, that nobody can have freedom when the government picks winners and losers. Because progressive value power and affluence over freedom, they must be reigned in, lest government power be abused.

American Exceptionalism
Both the above groups favor American power and affluence over freedom. They just favor using it for different things. Amazingly, both groups are slowly getting their way.

Many nations have, and have had, powerful governments that keep people safe, or redistribute income--there's nothing new or extraordinary about that. America is exceptional because it is free and people have enforceable rights against the government. We're one of the only nations that has ever even tried it. Over time, the results have brought about the most affluent, powerful group of individuals in human history. Even among the most poor--so much, that millions risk their lives to come here and work below our minimum wages. Freedom made us so affluent and powerful, that some people then wanted to harness those results for government's ends. Here, freedom becomes a tool which finances that which undermines freedom.

There is no trade-off between freedom and safety, security or equal wealth distribution. A safe, secure and powerful nation comes from having a free nation. Why? Largely because nations with powerful, rich governments, become police states, and destroy themselves from the inside through war. Similarly, the nation with the most access to wealth is the one with the most freedom. Why? Largely because nations with powerful, rich governments, disincentive wealth accumulation among both the rich and poor--through excessive tax and regulation people become stagnant and the government quickly runs out of other people's money.

When you try the police state, you get Rome. When you try wealth redistribution, you get the Soviet Union. When you try both, you get Detroit (without the mass exodus). The similarity across the board is one word: over-extension--and freedom prevents over-extension.

Freedom means that people are rich and powerful, not the government. The government's job is to make sure their rights are protected. The tension usually exists between the rights of people to do things that some find repugnant, and the power of government to stop it. This calls for a balanced approach, not the complete demolition of freedom.

Increasingly, people are saying "this is too important to leave it to the free market," or "this is too important to go without government oversight! We cant have drugs, and criminals, and gamblers, overly rich people and poor people, and sick people ect, ect, ect!" The list is endless, and it is all true--to a certain extent. Certainly, government has its purposes in reigning in repugnant private acts, and those are not to be ignored.

But at some point, you have to draw the line, and start saying, "American freedom is what makes us exceptional, not that other stuff, and that's too important to give the government more power."

National Debt Debate: Common Sense vs. Progressive Economists

2010-04-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

In this video, progressive economist Professor Dr. James Galbraith argues that the national debt is simply not something we need to be concerned about. Here, he takes a position against what most of us would call "common sense." Granted, sometimes "common sense" is simply wrong. But not here.

I find his argument wrong, and offensive. Common sense tells us that you cannot spend what you don't have, and that it is morally wrong to take from other people without some form of consent.

First, every taxpayer owes $117,000 on the debt. That means that, for most taxpayers, their largest liability is not their house or a business--it is their share of the national debt. In return, does the federal government provide more than anything else in people's live? Certainly not, at least for a large portion of the debt. For example, the U.S. owes almost $2 trillion in just interest payments alone.

Statement of Principle: People's resources should be locked up in what they choose--which is generally involves something productive or of some instristic value such as various investments or savings of wealth -- not feeding politician's reckless spending.

The first problem with the debt is the moral problem. Most people in this country did not voluntarily take this debt, yet they have to pay for it. Second, an extraordinary portion of government spending is pure waste. Also, our children have to pay for it, which has become known as "generational theft."

The second problem is the common sense problem. If spending unlimited amounts of money was productive, then no country (or person for that matter) would ever have debt problems! Its easy to spend more money and put it on a credit card. In fact, many fallen nations have tried.

The professor's main argument is that, unlike most entities, the U.S. can always print more money. In his professional writings, some of which I have read, he argues that this will not cause inflation. He ridicules economists who say that you can only print so much money.

This makes perfect sense if you adopt the progressive economist's premise. If spending money will make things better, than why not spend more money? Why stop at $2 trillion as President Obama did? As Paul Krugman has insistently argued, why not spend more?

Well, the fact is that these things only work in the SHORT TERM. Its just like borrowing from a credit card to pay your bills and live affluently. In the LONG TERM, it catches up with you. This is what economic bubbles are--and this is how we got the .com bubbles and especially the recent housing bubble.

The government now wants to create a government bubble. It is borrowing heavily, thinking that these short terms gains will never catch up with them, because they can print more money. The professor argues that there will be no inflation and the world will continue to respect the dollar.

I think he is mostly wrong. The U.S. can probably still print quite a bit of money to deal with its fiscal difficulties. However, at some point--I don't know where it is--but at SOME point, inflation will kick in and the world will stop respecting the dollar. They'll stop financing U.S. spending by allowing devalueation of their dollar holdings. Plus, they'll stop loaning money--why would they loan you money, when you pay them back in increasingly worthless paper? Several nations are already making moves to use an alternate currency, because they want a stable currency that does not lose its value.

The U.S. has gotten away with this for a long time, because most of the rest of the world destroyed itself, through war and inflationary monetary policy (i.e. largely what the U.S. is doing right now). The world needed a stable currency with value, and the dollar provided it. But the world now sees the U.S. is taking advantage of this status to finance a lot of spending that only benefits the U.S.'s own special interests. Also, the rest of the world is starting to rebuild itself.

In the end, the "fear-mongering" about the debt is exactly what we need. We need people to be very afraid of this, because it will encourage the people to elect politicians who will address the issue. This is hard because people generally want more government spending and less taxes--the ultimate paradox. But America has been responsible about this before, and we can again.

We merely need to ensure that "common sense" wins, in the battle between common sense and progressive economists. And that's not to say the Friedmans and Hayeks are always right--rather, I merely assert that common sense dictates that government spending is merely a short term solution, and meets with heavy diminishing returns at some point.

Souter's/Steven's Retirement: A Lesson for the U.S.

2010-04-09T11:03:00.000-07:00

With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens today from the US Supreme Court Republicans are reflecting on a lesson they know all to well: fidelity and loyalty are the great conservative virtues.

Lets get one thing on the table right off the bat: since the 1930's, the US Supreme Court is as much about politics as it is jurisprudence. How else could one explain the progressive revolution in jurisprudence, which occurred without a single amendment to the US Constitution? Since the Court is far less likely to concern itself with what the law actually is, and more what Justices think it should be, the politics of appointments are paramount now.

Conservatives value the virtues of fidelity and loyalty, because without these values, there is no rule of law. The common law is superior to any one man, because it is formed by the collective wisdom of consensus formed through many generations. The law should change by consensus, not the dictate of supposedly benevolent intellectuals.

However, if progressives are right, and man's intellect and morality are superior to the law, then there is only rule of man. Therefore, for conservatives, fidelity and loyalty to the law are paramount.

During the 20th Century, a total of 4 Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republicans, who turned out to be progressives: Earl Warren, William Brennan, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Each was a significant force for the progressive view of law. Warren and Brennan were nominated by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who later said it was "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." Souter was nominated by George H. W. Bush, while Stevens by Gerald Ford. Warren and Brennan retired during the administration of the Party that nominated them. But Souter and Stevens, waited for a Democratic president. Therefore, Republicans say they are political Benedict Arnolds.

I have no anger against Souter and Stevens when it come to their progressive jurisprudence--I simply disagree with it. When we have disagreements and debates, it is not personal and it is hardly a reflection on one's character. I respect the sincerity of progressives, although I think the idea that men are benevolent and intellectually capable of making decisions for others is naive and misguided. The fact that the conscience of Stevens and Souter guided them to a more progressive track is a matter of their powers as jurists.

However, I would first question their honesty--in their interviews, if they had told their President's "I plan to be a progressive jurist, and wait for a Democrat President to retire," would they have had any chance of being nominated? For these men, did the ends justify the means?

The thing that really makes me angry about Souter and Stevens is that, unlike Warren and Brennan who merely followed their conscience, Souter and Stevens demonstrate a complete lack of of the virtues of loyalty, fidelity and respect, with regards to their retirements. This is because, in deciding when to retire, they purposefully waited for a Democrat President, when they were appointed by Republicans. Since they were nominated by Republicans, they should have at least tried to retire during a Republican administration. There is no formal rule addressing this, rather, this is an issue of professional etiquette.

Is it any surprise that those who would abandon loyalty to the law, would also abandon loyalty to such etiquette?

In life, I believe you always appreciate those who had faith in you and supported you. Many of us work very hard to elect politicians that reflect our views. For a politician (whether nominated or elected) it is wrong to let people work for you, leading them to believe that you will act in a certain way--then ultimately act in a completely different way. As a public official, if you end up disagreeing with your supporters, then fine, you should always do what you think is right. But it is wrong to be dishonest up front, and then turn your back on those people altogether.

This is a difficult line to walk for the public official. Often, they have to do things they don't believe in because it is popular. And often they have to do things that are unpopular, because they sincerely believe in it. The ability to walk this line defines a great statesman. But I find it difficult to believe that this was the issue faced by Steven and Souter. Were they so unprepared for the issues they would face in office, that they were pursuaded to completely change their fundamental views? I find this difficult to accept. I find it more persuasive that they were trojan horses for progressives. It's not the "progressive" part that I object to, it's the "trojan horse" part.

I discuss my views on judges being more upfront about what they believe here.

Maybe the reputation progressive-special-interests-groups have for being willing to accomplish their agenda by any means is well earned. We have seen Congress and the President pushing an extraordinary agenda over the last year, on behalf of special interests (not progressives). It is fair to say that the public was probably unaware of what the Democrats planned to do with their new-found power. President Obama is now famous for his broken promises. Is there a pattern here? Can politicians be expected to govern differently than they campaign? I think so--and that is why government's power should be limited and the law should rule, not men.

The progressive ideology is based on the idea that a benevolent intellectual leader, of superior moral standing, should make decisions for the less-abled populous. Rousseau, for example, considered it "the best and most natural arrangement for the wisest to govern the multitude." It is only logical then, that the intellectual leader may have to be somewhat misleading during a campaign or nomination process; otherwise the less educated voters may not select him. Here, I am not saying that progressives are inherently dishonest--only that some are not really progressive. They simply are special interests who abuse the progressive ideology.

I disagreed with many things President Bush did, but in 2004 his campaign was based on the concept, "you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand." I respect that. Although I disagreed with President Bush, we knew what we were getting in '04 (maybe not so much in 2000, but he argues that Sept 11 changed all that).

I have all the respect in the world for sincere, well-intentioned progressives, although I disagree with them. I have no respect for dishonesty, disloyalty, lack of fidelity, or any lack of character.

Assessing AG's Arguments for Obamacare's Legality

2010-04-03T18:24:00.000-07:00

In this article, I will address the statement issued by the Attorneys General of Ohio and Iowa, found here. They argued that Obamacare is Constitutional.

Originally, I was skeptical that the Supreme Court would strike down any part of Obamacare. The AG's article has encouraged me otherwise. It makes two main arguments. First, is the "Commerce Clause" argument, which is probably good. Second, is the issue of the individual mandate. On this issue, the AG's are unable to make a persuasive argument.

Their Commerce Clause argument holds water. Under this clause, Congress may "regulate interstate commerce." Until the 1930's this was one of the most important limitations on Congressional power. However, at that point, it became one of the most important expanders of Congressional power. In order to accomplish this, the Supreme Court had to say that Congress could tell a family that they could not grow wheat for themselves, in their own back yard, during the Great Depression (Wickard v. Filburn). Since this case: interstate commerce = everything. However, in 1995, the Court scaled back the Commerce Clause a little bit, saying that Congress could not regulate the carrying of firearms, which could not possibly be interpreted as "commerce" (U.S. v. Lopez). The door was seemingly open for revivial of American's rights. But in 2005, the Court even allowed Congress to tell a state that it could not control marijuana that never crossed state borders (Gonzales v. Raich). Amazingly, Justice Scalia was the deciding vote.

The Court's illogical rationale regarding how these activities could be "interstate commerce" would be silly at best; if it wasn't so scary. They basically said that the activity need merely "effect" interstate commerce in some imaginable way.

So the AG's are right on this one: if Congress can tell you what you can grow in your garden because it "effects interstate commerce," than it can do just about anything related to anything vaguely called "commerce." The only hope is that the Court is willing to scale back the doctrine or overrule it. This is not at all unprecedented, but its rare.

Here's what would have to happen for the Commerce Clause to be interpreted according to its actual meaning. The Commerce Clause needs at least 5 of 9 votes to survive. The Court will have 4 anti-constitutionalists against the Clause and 3 conservatives for it. The swing votes will be Kennedy and Scalia. Kennedy voted with the majority in Gonzalez, so he is unlikely to uphold the clause now. This is why the Commerce Clause is probably still effectively deleted from the Constitution. I think Scalia will vote with the Conservatives, probably on some illogical grounds. I believe this, because I believe Scalia only concurred in Gonzalez v. Raich, because it was a drug-related case--this is consistent with his peculiar ideology. I don't think it had anything to do with law or logic. Assuming Scalia comes over, then the only hope is to convince Kennedy. This is possible, but unlikely, because he will want to stay consistent with his vote in Gonzalez.

However, the door is open for Kennedy to vote with the conservatives. The AG's had a really difficult time with the issue of whether the individual mandate falls within the intended definition of "regulation." Certainly, the legislative intent of the commerce clause was to reserve the power to issue individual mandates to the states. However, the Court is more likely to look at the inherent powers of Congress to make laws under the precedents of the last several decades. The AG's attempted to argue that the government does this all the time. This was disingenuous of them. They know exactly what is going on here, and that it is unprecedented in Constitutional History. Law School Constitutional Law Professor Obama was very slick with this one.

At no point in American history, has the federal Congress tried to criminalize "inactivity." Social Security is connected with an activity--namely working. The military draft was connected with an express power of Congress to raise an Army. Massachusetts has an individual mandate: but that's a state government, which has an entirely different kind of power than the federal Congress.
**(States have any power not forbidden by the Constitution, while Congress merely has the powers listed in the Constitution).

Assuming the AG's thought really hard about this, I am enthused that this was the best they could do. Frankly, it is pretty weak. Never has Congress exercised the power to arrest you for not buying a commercial product. This was done very cleverly by the President. It is a well-designed law, intended to get the Supreme Court to allow one more little step away from the Constitution. By not making the step too big, he makes it difficult for the Court. However, since it is unprecedented, the Court is more free to strike it down, without having to worry about stari decisis (i.e. the question of whether to let the law stand).

From the progressive perspective, the goal is this: if they can get the Court to approve this, it opens the door wider for income redistribution. Congress can then require people to give their money directly to other private parties. Progressives already succeeded in getting the Court to say that Congress could force you to give your personal house to another private party. So this was the next step.

The issue may come down to politics, which is often the case with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a majority of conservative leaning Justices. I believe there is likely some eagerness on the part of these five Justices to resist the President's power grab on this. This case could create an opportunity for the Court to draw more of a fine line with regards to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Dear General Pelosi: Bliztkrieg Wins Battles, Loses War

2010-03-20T14:11:00.001-07:00

I said from day one that Nancy Pelosi was a very bad pick for Speaker of the House for the Democrats. I have been proven right.

Pelosi has been deemed a great speaker since President Obama was sworn in, because she has won so many battles. Among other accomplishments, the House has successfully passed cap and trade, 2 trillion dollars worth of spending for the President, and a health-care bill with a "public-option."

To do this, she has used a blitzkrieg approach of threats and bribery, focused on quick passage rather than consensus building. This was thought necessary because many items on the Democratic agenda are unpopular, especially among Democrats, and debate was unlikely to advance the cause.

Despite winning all the battles, Nancy Pelosi is horribly losing the war. None of the significant legislation she rammed through the House has a chance in the Senate. Therefore, that legislation is purely academic. She expended so much political capital getting this legislation through, that she has very little left. She is out of favors, out of threats and members are increasingly distancing themselves from her. What is truly pathetic is that this legislation accomplishes virtually nothing.

There is one exception though—the legislation shows the far left that Democrats are working for them. Pelosi and Obama have clearly conspired to move the government toward a European-Socialist philosophy. They are supported by (at most) 15-20% of the country, most of which is located in highly densely populated areas, like Pelosi's San Francisco and Obama's inner Chicago area.

On the other hand, there is the backlash to their meaningless victories in these battles. Of the rest of the country, about half are generally opposed to this agenda and the rest are passionately against it. The ones who are passionately against it have made their voice heard. Their voices have resonated with the undecided. They have successfully pointed out the…inconsistencies (to use a nice term) involved with pushing the leftist agenda.

Although Nancy Pelosi has proven incredible at winning battles, the war is lost. In November of this year, Republicans will almost surely return to a majority in the House. Pelosi has given them so much ammunition, that they will likely not have to confront any questions about whether they will actually improve things or not. People just want Pelosi out.

Leftist Democrats believe that benevolent intellectuals should micromanage the country from a centralized location. This creates a monopoly. The legal monopolist behaves like any monopoly—people may be a little better off, but the ultimate winner is the monopoly itself. Its hard for some people to now support Republicans, because they seem to have forgotten this as well—but even at their worst, they were never as bad as these leftist Democrats. Unfortunately for the honest and sincere Democrats, Pelosi and Obama have given them a bad rap. They should never have let her become Speaker. Now, they will suffer at the voting booth.

Democrats can ridicule, mock and make fun of Republicans all they want. They can say the Republicans are controlled by "fringe groups," as did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They can say it is ruled by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, as did White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. They can call them "tea-baggers" (a sexual epithet) as did President Obama. They can say that Fox News is just right-wing propaganda. But have they noticed that Fox News is the second highest rated cable channel in the U.S.? Have they noticed that Limbaugh is the highest rated radio program?

Does it makes any sense at all for politicians to denigrate that which is the most popular? In fact, every time they do so, these institutions get more popular. It was folly for the Democrats to confuse a backlash to Republican corruption, for an ideological shift to socialism.

The insults are just a temporary victory for arrogant Democrats. But they contribute to the inevitable loss of the war. This kind of behavior will never be popular. It just adds fuel to the sentiment that Democrats are arrogant, paternalistic, jerks who know they cant win with these issues politically, so they want to circumvent the political processes and the Constitution (which they now openly despise).

I thank God that this weekend should mark the end of this era. They thought history would belittle the Constitution, but instead it will belittle its mightiest challengers.

Luckily, the Constitution reigns in most of what these people wanted. Unfortunately, the President was smart enough to lock up about $2 trillion worth of future generation's money before he got into this mess. He still has a significant part of that left, so many will still have to kiss his rings to unlock that money. FYI: This is why getting that money was his first priority and was worth breaking a number of campaign promises to get.

Both parties should understand that people are better off when they are respected for their intelligence, personal responsibility, autonomy and rights. Until this happens, the parties will bounce back and forth achieving nothing productive. The country should modernize and move forward with changes. But this should be done by consensus building—not letting the most leftist 20% of the country rule by threats and bribery.

Like Pelosi, they will win the battles, but lose the war.

Can Obama-care Survive?

2010-03-18T10:50:00.000-07:00

It looks like Obama-care is coming to an end this week. On one hand, he will show his determination to his supporters, and claim he got closer than anyone else ever did. On the other hand, our society does not want centralization or monopolization of the healthcare industry, and the Democrats will suffer greatly for this effort--as they should.

If you subsidize something, it will get more expensive. This is because there is no incentive to lower the price, while there is a good incentive to increase it. Think about this: if I go to a hamburger shop and offer to pay for the cost of hamburgers, what will happen? The hamburger shop will raise its price as high as it can. Demand for those hamburgers will skyrocket. This is what has happened in healthcare, education, and many markets where government has intervened.

This is why healthcare costs are so high. However, the Obama administration's philosophy is to shift subsidies from one location to another. This will do nothing to solve the problem.

When people pay for what they buy, in a competitive market, prices will lower and access increases. Paul Ryan has suggested as much. His plan puts existing entitlements on sustainable ground, while giving people more and more options. It allows people to opt out of the welfare state disaster. He incorporates the idea of using vouchers, which gives people ownership and control of their own decisions, while providing help for the needy.

The President's response to vouchers is that they will not work because costs will go up, while the voucher will not. However, the President is so fundamentally lost when it comes to understanding what makes costs go up or down that it is not even funny. A voucher program that forces people to pay for part of the their care can only drive costs down (presuming that the voucher-holder has to pay a significant enough cost).

Is it unsympathetic to rely on the spontaneous order brought about through market forces? Not at all. This is the most proven system in human history.

There will always be rationing in any system, because of scarcity. The pricing mechanism has historically been shown to be the best way to ration, because it drives down costs and improves quality, as producer seek to provide their product to more people, and those people demand lower costs. Since we have left the market system for a hybrid market/socialized system, Paul Ryan's plan is the best possible plan that is politically feasible. The CBO has supported this assertion.

In a free market, no transaction takes place unless both parties benefit. Nothing unleashes the creative and industrial energies of people like the free-enterprise system. The government-monopoly system may make many better off, but the ultimate winner is always the monopoly itself.

We must defeat the government-monopolization attempts in Congress right now. Paul Ryan's plan provides a truly good alternative.

CLICK HERE TO SEE PAUL RYAN'S PRESENTATION REGARDING HIS PLAN

Clean Energy Arrives... Without Government?

2010-02-22T18:02:00.000-08:00

Watch CBS News Videos Online

This video is a dramatic example of something libertarians and conservatives have been saying for a long time: the government is more of an obstruction to clean, efficient energy than a driving force.

If this energy box is the next big thing, then think about all the wasted tax money spent by the government on other technologies. We all contributed to this waste, whether we liked it or not. Now we find that the next big energy technology comes from profit-seeking, private actors, with no government assistance beyond a tax cut. This epitomizes the concept of opportunity costs. The government has spent billions on developing clean, efficient energy. These guys may have done it on $400 million of private money.

Furthermore, think of the unfairness of the fact that this company now has to compete with lesser technologies that are heavily subsidized. Think about the institutions that have heavy investments from the government—when this technology takes hold, their research may become obsolete and prove to have been a complete waste. They will now lose their jobs or funding sources because they invested themselves in a government fad.

The private sector, driven by the profit-motive, in the free-enterprise environment, is responsible for virtually every major human innovation in history. In doing so, the creative and innovative forces unleashed by the free enterprise system lift people from poverty to prosperity. The government's job is to get out of the way, and provide a set of rules and regulations to protect wealth creation from the destructive forces of the greedy—including greedy politicians, greedy business-people and even greedy income redistributionist.

The United States is committed to a clean environment. However, we are also committed to a free society. For many, a clean environment is worth trampling on the principles of the free society. Therefore, higher taxes, taking of property, and other dictatorial acts of government are a small price to pay. They do not consider that the evil of oppressive government could outweigh the evil of pollution at some point. They do not consider that the power they give to government to pick winners in the energy market, may also be used to protect the polluters themselves.

Here, we discover again that they got it exactly wrong. There is no trade off between oppressive government and pollution. The highest polluting companies, virtually anywhere in the world, almost always tend to do so with the force of government behind them. Whereas the inventors who develop innovative, clean, efficient energy, do so with no government aid, and mainly for profit—not political popularity.

A free society, with a free enterprise market, will bring about cleaner and more efficient energy production.

Sarah Palin's Hand

2010-02-09T21:57:00.000-08:00

Liberals are mocking Sarah Palin because of the writing on her hand during her "Tea Party"speech. Even White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs is in on the fun.

However, they will discover that this is exactly what Sarah Palin wants. She and her supporters openly despise Gibbs and the left. Although I seriously doubt the "Tea Party" credentials of this organization or the speech, there are many within the movement who like Sarah Palin. They like her for her (very) anti-intellectual approach.

She appears authentic. Her inability to handle the Washington press corps serves only to heighten her appeal. Making fun of her only reinforces her point that Washington liberals are arrogant jerks who could care less what people outside of the coasts think. In other words, Sarah Palin wants us to think that they hate her because she is like us. If she succeeds, liberals will be hurt politically.

This is especially the case when the joke is so absurd--jotting down a few notes on one's hand is a common trick of speech givers, and is nothing like reading from a teleprompter in an elementary school. Although, I will say that Obama teleprompter jokes are a bad idea for Republicans too, because Obama is a proven gifted speaker from the cuff as well.

The way to diminish her is to give her little attention, and take her seriously when they do. However, that fact is that Gibbs and his cohorts are arrogant jerks, so that probably isn't going to happen.

Roll On Train, Roll On Joe Biden

2010-01-06T14:47:00.000-08:00

Vice President Joe Biden is arguing that "America Needs Trains."

In this article, Biden convinces us that he personally loves trains. He even does some convincing that they are important in America.

What Biden misses though, is an argument as to why the taxpayers should support trains, whether they like them or not. He also neglects to convince me why he should be the one who gets to decide whether we get trains or not. Who is the Vice President, or even the President for that matter, to decide for us what kind of businesses we should support?

If building trains was a good idea, then why do taxpayers have to pay for it? If so many people will ride, and benefit from trains, then private parties would gladly pay for it.

But politicians often don't think this way. They don't want the people of this country to decide what is a good idea, they want that power for themselves. In a free society, the people decide what they want by either participating or not participating. If they will ride a train, it will be profitable to build them, and businesses will line up for blocks to build and run them.

Clearly, the people of this country don't want trains, otherwise, why would Biden feel the need to funnel taxpayer dollars into them? Well, maybe that is because there is a strong special interest group surrounding the trains, and the unions which supposedly represent those who work in the train industry.

Amtrak is one of America's biggest failures. The absurdities of the services are well documented. It runs routes that nobody rides and charges insanely weird rates. But that doesn’t stop the government from supporting it.

It became part of the federal government, as part of a bailout of the company. The company was loosing money to start with and since the government took over, it looses billions of dollars every year. And why shouldn’t it spend more money than it makes—the taxpayers pay the bills.

So answer me this Mr. Biden: why should taxpayer pay the bills of private companies, which cannot attract enough customers to even come close to breaking even? And who will compete with Amtrak, improving the product of the industry, when the government supports the primary competitor? But the most important question is this: why should the government decide how to spend the taxpayer's money, rather than the taxpayer's themselves?

Some politicians love the idea of trains because it kinda goes along with their ideology. With a train, everybody is herded onto a rail-car together and goes to a predetermined location at a predetermined time, all managed by a central authority. To build trains, the government plows through other people's property, taking it for the higher purpose decided by the state. In densely populated areas, like Biden's native Delaware and DC, this makes more sense.

But for most the country, the idea is horrible and offensive.

Americans generally do not like trains. We prefer personal cars with destinations and arrival times of our own choosing. We don't like having to conform with the rules of the road, no less the train-station's rules. And we don’t like a government that wastes our money under the notion that the government should use our money to support "American tradition" industries or industries the government says we cant do without.

We don't need Joe Biden or anyone else to tell us what we "need." We can decide for ourselves just fine, thank you very much.

Obama: Patriarch of Banks

2009-12-15T08:39:00.001-08:00

In the New York Times today, President Obama is reported as having said this to the big Wall Street Bankers in a conference call with them, “The way I see it, having recovered with the help of the American government and the American taxpayers, our banks now have a greater obligation to the goal of a wider recovery, a more stable system, and more broadly shared prosperity."

So what is shared prosperity?

When I think of "share," I think of a mother telling her children they must not hog all the cookies. Although it is a benevolent term, and we all think of sharing as important, it is a dictatorial term. Sharing because you want to is one thing; sharing because the government makes you, is another. But what I really don't understand is the President's notion, that he will persuade the bankers to think of their banks as extensions of government benevolence.

They say that Wall Street bankers are prosperous again, due to tax payer bailouts. And since we paid for it, we all deserve to benefit from their prosperity. But this outlook by the President, shows his foolishness. Here's a lesson for him:

Businesses don't exist for "shared prosperity." They exist to make money. By pursuing profits, they must provide a product or service to customers. In doing so, there is shared prosperity because every consumer benefits: competition drives down prices, increases quality. In a free market, no exchange takes place, unless both parties benefit. A free market is not about sacrificing of yourself for the good of mankind; but rather benefiting yourself, for the benefit of mankind.

This is all undermined when the business colludes with the government. Here, the business no longer seeks to please the customer, but rather politicians. Why lower prices or improve service when you are truly serving the government, not the consumer?

Currently, these banks are investing heavily in US Treasuries, and small business lending is way down. People are rightfully angry about this.

Mr. President, if you want "shared prosperity," don't talk down to them, like you are their parent, and you are going to teach them about their obligations and responsibilities to the public. They know their responsibilities, and they don't include managing the economy. Mr. President, that's your job! If you want them to serve the consumers of this country, and share their prosperity, then stop colluding with them! Let them fail. Take them off this socialism for the rich. Let them compete in the free market with the rest of us. Force them to turn to the consumer for profits, rather than the government.

"Shared properity" is not the product of government bailouts and paternal government urging, but rather, simply a free society; where businesses either serve the consumer or fail.

Wal-Mart Labor Practices Discussion

2009-12-10T11:26:00.000-08:00

Here is a reply by my friend, to my last blog, "Why Do I Find Myself Sticking Up for Wal-Mart." Below the reply, is my answer.

I read the answer to my question, here's is another question for you...why do you keep insisting that fair labor practices are "charity" or that someone who believes they are important is more concerned with charity than"profit motive"?? How did you come to this conclusion because to me that makes absolutely no sense. Your answer seems to agree with my views and disagree with them at the same time??

Maybe if Walmart did better by it's employees, the employees wouldn't need "charity".

87,500 people is alot of people to wrong. ... See More

To make it abundantly clear, I don't even believe in charity in the traditional sense of the word. No one should get a hand out except for children who can not work or provide for themselves. Charities I support create opportunities for people to work or get an education so that they can support themselves.

My Reply:

Originally, In this discussion, going way back, we were discussing the profit motive, and I said that Wal-Mart has done more for poor people than any charitable institution--through low prices and jobs. This was an example of a larger principle; that pursuing profit is looked down upon, even though it ultimately benefits the poor more than charitable work.

You took exception to that, given their labor practices.

I argue that their labor practices are better sorted out by the market, and the free choice of the employees and customers than the government--because government intervention undermines free choice and produces worse outcomes by any measure. Usually, such government activity is just rent seeking. I said that, although Wal-Mart has done bad things, you shouldn't be so quick to judge what is good for a poor person. They can decide for themselves where they choose to work and what labor practices they are willing to tolerate.

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION:
Wal-Mart, like any other business, has to compete in the labor market. Their wages, benefits and conditions are determined by what the market will yield. Some people dont think that is enough. So the government often imposes higher standards--purportedly, imposing a higher cost of labor, for the benefit of the laborers.

This forces their customers to pay for such charity--which most can ill afford to do. What really happens, is they stop buying altogether, due to higher costs. This increases real unemployment. After the minimum wage was imposed in the US, unemployment among the poor skyrocketed--and many jobs were eliminated due to higher costs.

So your ultimate result is this: poor people can afford less goods, and they have less jobs (albeit, many jobs you dont think they should have a right to, because they dont pay up to your standards).

Here is a great discussion on this by Milton Friedman.

Here is an REALLY good discussion by Peter Schiff.

If such low-paying jobs are so bad, then why would 20 million Mexican travel 2000 dangerous miles for a job that pays below government standards? If such standards were imposed, the jobs would dry up and the the immigrants would not even get the low wages at all.

If we were to drive China's labor costs to US levels, there would be no incentive to do business there. Low cost labor is their only comparative advantage, and they will benefit greatly from it in the long term. Although, in the short term, there will be difficulty. This is the same thing that happened in the US and Europe in the industrial revolution.

I know Wal-Mart could do more, and shame on them for not. But if we are going to draw battle lines, put me on Wal-Mart's side any day--with their millions of employees, shareholders, and customers. Wal-Mart thrives because consumers chose to shop there, and people chose to work there. They never got any favors from the government.

Why Do I Find Myself Sticking Up for Evil Wal-Mart?

2009-12-09T15:05:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine asked why I stick up for Wal-Mart, despite all the evil things they do. I never intended for it to be that way. It just kinda happened. It may be that I generally like it when I work hard to understand something, and I feel like I got the answer. Most people don't spend their time wasting away in books like me, so I tend to get this feeling all-to-often! Ha, ha!

There are two basic defenses of Wal-Mart as an institution.

There is no defense for the close-minded haters, who just don't like the company no matter what. For some, its merely cultural, emotional, or just visceral. For those, for whom facts matter, here's an attempt to merely give perspective to a company that's neither all good nor all bad. I merely argue, the good outweighs the bad.

There is also no argument for those who do not care how markets work. Often, these folks deride the "profit-motive," as if pursuing it is somehow less admirable than charitable work. Both pursuits have their advantages and disadvantages. But the numbers show clearly, that the poor of today live far better than the rich did 100 years ago, because stuff got cheaper--and it got cheaper because of the profit motive, not charity. But then again, a free enterprise cannot function at all, unless people are free and willing to choose to be charitable. (It is compulsory charity that causes the multitude of problems).

As Adam Smith famously said that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." And Milton Friedman expressed as, "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." But I digress...

Many of the anti-Wal-Marters are not just telling people not to shop there. If it were just that, I would not object. Wal-Mart has a history of doing all kinds of things it shouldn't do. The market has, in fact, punished them greatly for it; many people simply will not shop there. They have a bad reputation and they deserve it.

I read Sam Walton's biography last year, and he admitted as much. He talked of how he realized he could make more money by creating incentive programs and giving employees better pay and benefits. His motivations may not have been right, but like Wal-Mart as an institutions, the profit motivation did more good than altruism may have otherwise done. He created a whole department dedicated to creating incentives to attract and retain employees. They instituted a slew of various programs and ideas.

But, yet again, Wal-Mart is being punished for shoddy employment practices in the courts. (I question why it was all done through settlements, and the plaintiffs chose not to go to court, but that merely means nothing is proven either way).

So people are often right to attack Wal-Mart. My own father proudly boycotted it till the day he died. However, there are two things I object to. First, is to misunderstand all the good things Wal-Mart has done, simply because they did bad things as well. I shop there as much as possible, because I see it as charitable. By any measure, this institution does more for poor people than virtually any other. Name just ONE other institution that reduces prices for people by 50 billions dollars a year - and through voluntary transactions. And in doing so, Wal-Mart provides more than nick-naks. They are America's largest grocer, clothing provider, and private employer—even before you count the industry built up around it.

Secondly, is the bigger issue. There are people who don’t think people can make their own choices. They presume to know what's best for others. But they don’t seek to persuade people what's best for them—they try to use the force of government to get their way, claiming to do so in the name of the public welfare. However, they didn’t ask the public.

Often, this is just classic rent-seeking behavior by Wal-Mart's competitors.

A few years ago, I was working in politics when Wal-Mart wanted to build a store in Powell, Ohio, which is on the northern side of Columbus. It is a rich neighborhood, with an average household income of about 140k a year. The people who I worked with (Republicans) were many of the protestors.

I talked to several of the people who fought to keep Wal-Mart out. They said that "people in Powell don’t want a Wal-Mart here." I found this to be very audacious, because if people really didn’t want a Wal-Mart there, then Wal-Mart would not build there…they'd go out of business because nobody would shop there.

But the fact is, that if there were a Wal-Mart there, they would have plenty of customers. That’s why Wal-Mart wants to build there! So I ask, why cant people decide for themselves where they want to shop? Why do they need you to tell them they don't want a Wal-Mart nearby?

The people who protested didn’t want the "people of the city," to get their way, they wanted to get their own way. They really didn’t care if anyone else wanted a Wal-Mart because they presumed to know what is best for those people. They didn’t want the debate to be settled by the market, by free choice, or by the actions of people who either choose to shop or not.

They didn’t want the market to decide, because they knew they would loose in the market. So they turned to government. Political votes, especially for the wealthy, are much easier to win than persuading consumers.

This is why progressives don’t like the concept of a free society or a free market. The free market gives the consumer the power to choose whether Wal-Mart should stand or not. Every consumer gets a vote, with their pocket book. And since Wal-Mart caters to the poor and middle-class, it will mainly be these classes of people who do the voting. You'll find that the neighborhoods that fight the government the most are the wealthy ones. Poor neighborhoods are generally very, if not ecstatically, receptive of Wal-Mart.

This applies to other issues as well. Some people don't like the free market, not because it doesn't work or because people will be worse off, but rather because they don't like the choices people will make. Therefore, they feel people should be deprived of the right to make such choices. Onerous licensing laws deprive people of the choice to hire who they choose to give legal advise, provide food, medicine, daycare, dogs, marriage, haircuts, and other such things. Some states are trying to license interior decorating. Property restrictions are used to deprive people of the right to choose any business whatsoever in many places.

All this is usually done in the name of protecting people from themselves--and it often is the case. They think people cannot decide for themselves where to shop, so the government intervenes. However, all to often, the real purpose is just pure rent seeking, plain and simple. Wal-Mart has been the victim of this on many occasions. It has become all to easy to demonize a company, not because they deserve to be demonized, but rather to justify rent seeking behavior.

Lastly, is the cultural issue. Some people are snotty, stuck up people (trust me, I know this from a lot of experience there). This small group of people does not want Wal-Mart in their snotty suburbs, because they think that Wal-Mart is for the low class.

Having Your Healthcare and Eating it Too (Long Version)

2009-07-27T10:38:00.000-07:00

I have an abstract version of this blog available here.

The media narrative about health-care tells you that it is government vs. the private sector, and it misses the real crucial element: the individual patient.

As I write this, my Father is currently lying in the hospital, suffering from Leukemia. He has been there 39 days. He did not have health insurance. He was dependant on a state Cobra plan that he had through my Mother who was a state employee. But he lost it just a few months ago in a divorce, when my Mother left him after 34 years. He couldn’t get new health insurance at an affordable price because he had diabetes. The Leukemia set in only 3 months after he lost his insurance. I’ve come to understand that healthcare, like life, is a tough issue, but there is an answer.

I believe the best solution would be based on the idea of empowering individuals over both the private sector and the government. My Dad is the perfect example of the failures of both political parties and their empty rhetoric and false dichotomies. They say they need our money and decision-making power to help us, but instead they simply make us helplessly dependent.

The basic theoretical problem with our healthcare system, is that we want to have a system that has all the benefits of both a government-run (single-payer) and free-market healthcare system, but not the detriments of either. As the saying goes, "we want to have our cake, and eat it too." Unfortunately, we cant.

In other words, we are trying to 1) make sure everyone who needs healthcare is never denied (the benefit of a single-payer system); but 2) still keep in place the natural “free-market” barrier to healthcare of monetary costs, which:

• puts downward pressure on healthcare costs,
• prioritizes who receives treatment (according patients who are willing to pay - thus reducing the long lines of single payer that undermine their system),
• encourages preventive-health measures,
• provides a profit-motive for innovation, and
• leaves in place a natural modernization cycle (Government programs never go out of business, and frequently fall into a state of irreparable stagnation – governments are built not to embed policies, not update them. This is why the Soviet Union was an industrial powerhouse under Stalin, then soon fell way behind in the 1960’s. This is what is currently happening with our banking system: the government is preventing it from going through a modernization cycle.)

Comparing the Two Orthodox Ideas (Hint: Both Are Wrong)
The picture painted for us is Democrats vs. Republicans, with Democrats supporting government empowerment, and Republicans supporting private sector business empowerment.

The government system has its benefits – that's why Americans would prefer to have Canada’s system for routine care. The lines are long and care is rationed by a bureaucracy, but its relatively simple for patients and is tax-payer subsidized.

However, the free market system has its benefits too – that’s why people from the socialized countries come to the U.S. and pay when they need more than routine care, or don’t want to wait in long lines, or when innovators want to try new ideas.

The Current System
Currently, we have a hybrid of the two and that is where many problems arise from. The country is trying to retain all the benefits of the free-market system, while undermining the free-market operation at every turn by subsidizing care. Subsidies drive prices up and quality down. My Dad has to pay for his own care – meaning he has to pay a price created by subsidies. Furthermore, he does not have the bargain power of an insurance company. In other words: his price is driven up by subsidies and billion-dollar insurance companies who can negotiate for lower prices.

Frankly, the idea that either system would have substantially less problems than the current system, is naïve. What is particularly naïve is somebody having trouble paying for their healthcare and saying, “if only the government would just pay for me, then it would solve all our problems – you know, just like they solved all our problems in retirement, banking, energy, national defense ect!”

People who think this way do not understand the ripple effects caused by such policies. A perfect example of "unintended consequences" is the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in the last two years, due to U.S. subsidies of corn for ethanol. Reason TV did a documentary called “Silly Senator: Corn is for Food,” which chronicled the effect of the U.S. subsidies. The subsidies raised the world price of corn – whenever we raise the price of corn even a fraction of a percent, thousands of people will then be unable to afford any food at all.

Where to Go From Here

The best idea out there right now that the Congress might actually pass without screwing it up, is to make all health-care related expenses tax-deductible. This would at least keep some market principles in place, while allowing for at least some monetary relief. Plus it lowers taxes!

The real problem is not theoretical, but practical. The system is run by human beings. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics said, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interests.” His insights into human nature are instructive.

Self interest and incentives drive humanity. Although hundreds of variables will influence any human institution, you can always bet on certain things. First, is that there will be greed. When someone acts in their self-interest, to the detriment of others, it is greed. This includes patients, doctors, nurses, hospitals, governments, bureaucrats and private companies alike. The greed is what prevents us from ever having a perfect system.

So how do we deal with greed?

Both the government single-payer and the free-market private sector will act in their self interest, and greedily at times. The government cannot police the greed of the private sector, over 300 million Americans, plus foreigners. This is flat out impossible and the question will always be: who’s policing the police? The government has shown clearly that it cannot police itself. So who then, does the policing of greed.

The answer is that the individual must have this power for any system to work. Every individual must be able to make a dent if he or she is not receiving the care they deserve. To set up this situation, patients must pay for their care and have the option of leaving for another provider.

The only way to keep the system honest is to harness the power of the individual. I think the best way to do this is through a voucher system available only for extreme cases on a case-by-case basis. Such a system would have to be crafted well, and somehow survive the greed of the U.S. Congress. The main idea would be to 1) put providers back into the shoes of a service industry that has to meet the high demands thereof and; 2) put patients back into the shoes of customers who have a right to bring their business elsewhere.

The system is riddled with other specific problems, but this direction would be the best way to go. Believe it or not, the U.S. actually has an incredible health-care system; the problem lies in our horrible health-insurance system. The goal is to fix the insurance system, without undermining the quality of health-care.

Problems with the President's Plan

President Obama’s idea is to simply create a government competitor. The first problem with this that this is essentially the way the system already works. Secondly, it does nothing to fix the problem that individual patients are powerless to pursue their own self-interest within the system; while the government, providers of care, and insurance have enormous amounts of power to pursue theirs.

Is Sotomayor a Beneficiary of Racism and American Tradition?

2009-07-22T10:32:00.000-07:00

The comments below are based on this video...

As usual, Pat Buchanan does a poor job of making his point here.

In the above video, Maddow makes a good point that the vast majority of Supreme Court justices have been white males. That result means something is wrong. Buchanan also makes a good point in noting that it is wrong to discriminate against anybody based on race, regardless of whether they are white or otherwise.

What the two of them miss is a distinction between results and process.

Maddow’s point reminds us that, for centuries, the process was wrong because it was discriminatory in favor white males. Hence, the results were an all white male Supreme Court for two centuries. However, Buchanan’s point reminds us that two wrongs do not make a right – you don’t replace one discriminatory process with another simply to achieve a desired result. Maddow, in keeping with liberal affirmative action orthodoxy, seems to suggest that we fix the result, but not the process.

Former slave Fredrick Douglas famously said in the 1860’s, “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us...If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs... If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man.”

The President and Congress should address the process of fixing judicial selection. Doing so would produce a better result. If the process were appropriate, we would have a diverse bench. However, the ideal is to have a perfect process – not a certain race-based result.

Maddow asked if Buchanan thought it was a good thing that we will have a Hispanic Supreme Court justice. His answer should have been that the result is not the issue, the process is. Since she came about through a discriminatory process, the answer is that her appointment is not a good thing. However, the result that Maddow is asking about, is simply is a reflection of the fact that we Americans are at least trying, and this is a good thing – despite that we continue to get the process wrong.

When President George Washington selected the first Supreme Court, he selected them based on their ideology rather than qualifications. Some were qualified, some were not. It is nothing new that President Obama would now select a minimally qualified jurist for the Court for purely political reasons. In fact, in this respect, Sotomayor’s appointment is in keeping with a long American tradition.

Sotomayor’s statements and decision in the Ricci case shows that she agrees with Obama, Maddow and others, that the results are all that matter. They believe that if the process produces a bad result, you address the result and ignore the process.

In the Ricci case, it was not alleged that there was something wrong with the process; merely that the results alone justified affirmative action appointments to the Fire Department. It is explicitly forbidden to take race into consideration in hiring under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The idea that our society should “remedy” past discrimination by giving bonus points to certain races today is offensive as it is counterproductive. All people should be judged solely by two things: their individual merit and character. It is fair to take disadvantaged background into consideration in assessing these two factors. Race might play a role in this in certain contexts. However, race alone demonstrates neither. Those who think race alone is enough are oversimplifying a complex issue.

Click here to read why I believe Sotomayor should not be confirmed.

Congress Applies "Living Constitution" Interpretation to Sotomayor's Race Comments

2009-07-14T21:09:00.000-07:00

America is nation that values personal responsibility and old fashioned common sense. We respect the rule of law, as opposed to individual political preferences. We believe the law should be plain and have real, predictable consequences for the pursuit of justice.

So it is sad and ironic that many Senators have become apologists for Judge Sotomayor’s comments that a wise Latina would make “better decisions than a white male.” It’s widely argued that she really didn’t mean what she said. This is just like the (mainly) Democrat’s “Living, Breathing Document” abusive approach to interpreting the Constitution – which also instructs us that the Constitution doesn’t really mean what it says.

To ignore the plain implications of the words of the law or Sotomayor’s statements undermines our law and our values.

Sotomayor and her Democratic Party supporters have effectively admitted that what she repeatedly said was unbecoming a Supreme Court justice. They also know that their interpretation of her words that they are espousing is impossible to gather from the plain meaning of her language. Their retort is that she didn’t really mean it. No responsible parent (who is not a U.S. Senator) would accept such an excuse from their child, so why should we accept it from Sotomayor?

This retort is patently absurd and further exposes a prevalent evil in Washington. As an attorney, she is a master of language by trade. She should be held to a higher standard, especially in regards to her usage of language. It is to be assumed that every Supreme Court nominee meant precisely every word they have publicly said, including every implication that flows therefrom. To believe otherwise is offensive to her intelligence and competency as a lawyer. In other words, if they are right – if she is incapable of saying precisely what she means – then she is not competent to sit on the court.

This being said, I assume for the rest of this writing that she meant it. The question then becomes whether her feelings on this subject disqualify her from sitting on the Supreme Court or whether they merely represent a controversial ideology.

The answer is yes, she should be disqualified. However, she wont be. Congressional standards are really different than what they are purported to be. The fact is that everyone in Congress knows that Sotomayor is smart enough to know exactly what she was saying and they don’t really question whether she meant it. They are going to vote for her because they really don’t care what she said – just like too many in Congress really don’t care what the Constitution really means. Both parties, but Democrats especially, are perfectly willing to undermine the rule of law to achieve their agenda. Democrats will vote for her, because Sotomayor shares their agenda.

The “Living, Breathing Constitution” view is one that says the meaning of the words of the law change with time and that judges must decide what those changes are. Certainly some laws are intended to change with time, such as the second amendment right to bear arms. Here, there is a clearly articulable justification for an "evolving standard." This right protects an individual’s God-given inalienable right to self-defense (the part that never changes with time). But, it involves a particular technology; and since technologies change, so must this part of the law. If lasers someday become necessary for “the security of a free state,” then they may be protected for individual self-defense.

However, this philosophy is prone to great abuse. The abuse comes when such judicial changes clearly depart from the intended meaning of the words; i.e. when the part that must evolve with time is used to justify undermining the inalienable rights that never change. The plain meaning of the second amendment protects one’s right to defend oneself with adequate technology. To use the “Living Constitution” view to justify deprivation of this right is abuse.

Sotomayor and her ideological colleagues would have us believe that, like her comments, the Constitution does not really mean what it says. For example, the “interstate commerce clause” would include items solely within intrastate commerce (an abuse conservative Justice Scalia is guilty of as well). The “contracts clause” does not mean anything at all. The words “public use,” include “private use.” And we’re just getting warmed up. Both parties are equally guilty.

Another good application of this approach to the English language is to argue that Sotomayor’s words, “better decision than a white male, actually means “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions” (at least this was leading Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy’s misquotation of the statement).

The United States Constitution is a document that limits the power of government by empowering individuals with inalienable rights. It calls for respect for personal responsibility and consequences for bad behavior – not special favors for minorities, majorities or Presidential nominees. Sotomayor is part of a bi-partisan team of activists who do not like this. Rather than seek broad consensus to change the Constitution in favor of their unconstitutional ideas, they seek to simply make its words meaningless through the dictatorial power of the judiciary.

Sotomayor demonstrated such abuse in the Ricci case. She issued a decision, knowing full well that her decision would be overturned. Although there was clearly something wrong with the test in question in the Ricci case, Sotomayor’s opinion was clearly an example of putting political ideology over the rule of law – as opposed to crafting a wise decision within the bounds of a law she doesn’t like.

Sotomayor spoke of the “wisdom” she apparently believes she has due to her race and sex. We learn of the value of wisdom from a Sunday School tale. In one of the most famous cases in human history, King Solomon of the Bible demonstrated great wisdom in a case involving a dispute over who was the mother of a child. His decision to cut the baby in half exposed the real mother. It gave her a chance to show her true love by begging for the child’s life.

In the Ricci case, Sotomayor showed that she doesn’t use wisdom, like Solomon, to think creatively within the bounds of principles of the law. In fact, despite years of opportunity, she lags far behind many other female jurists in producing substantial writings. Rather, she just ignores law that she doesn’t like, and justifies it with some notion that the law doesn’t mean what it says. In this case she ignored language in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that explicitly makes it illegal to take adverse employment actions on the basis of an individual’s race; something the City explicitly admitted to doing.

However, Sotomayor’s apologists don’t like the idea of personal responsibility – so it is no surprise they don’t think Sotomayor should take responsibility for her comments. They don’t like the idea of consequences for bad behavior – so they don’t think Sotomayor should have to suffer for her statements. They don’t like the idea of judges being bound by the plain meaning of the words of the law – so it is no surprise that she will not be bound to the plain meaning of her own words.

Why the Fed is More Dangerous than China

2009-07-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

Update on this story: Senate is discussing auditing the Fed. Over half the House has cosponsered HB 1207, which would allow for such an audit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56567F20090706

President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “the only thing we have to fear is: fear itself.” Exaggerated fears drive us to often accept political acts that empower politicians and ultimately make things worse. So, is there a divergence between what we fear, and what is actually dangerous to us?

I recently saw the Chernobyl nuclear disaster listed as the greatest man-made disaster of all time. But I remembered something from my undergrad days: that the only deaths that could definitely be attributed to the incident were from incompetent Soviet Socialist firefighters who killed themselves trying to save people. Otherwise, disease and environmental effects remained at normal levels. The IAEA even concluded, in the Chernobyl Forum Booklet, that “a greater risk than the long-term effects of radiation exposure, is the risk to mental health [due to] exaggerated fears about the effects of radiation.”

Yet today, fear has made it virtually impossible to build a nuclear power plant in America, despite that fact that they are the safest and cleanest way to produce mass energy by far. For example of this silliness, look at France, which is 100% nuclear powered. In light of this, some say the U.S. got its education on nuclear power through “The Simpsons,” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.”

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg put the problem very eloquently, saying, “Nobody knows exactly what they should do, but anything is better than nothing.” New Yorker’s should note that a combination of fear and Bloomberg’s “do something” argument was used to support the Iraq War, the Sarbane-Oxley Act, Campaign Finance Reform and countless other acts which merely accomplished the exact opposite of their stated intent.

At the 1932 Republican convention, Herbert Hoover spoke of his reaction to the 1929 Great Depression saying, “We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action.” Of course, the depression only got much worse. He did a lot, but it had more to do with making sure his friends did not suffer from the depression.

As Roosevelt warned, we Americans are hardly above absurd pandemonium. During the 1950’s “Red Scare,” Senator Joseph McCarthy showed off the power of fear. He used aggressive random accusation by exclaiming that he had a list of communists in the U.S. government. Richard Nixon soon began building a whole career around a more politically-acceptable version of this approach, which became known as “McCarthyism.” These were certainly scary men; but some wonder whether the real problem was the men who abused the Red Scare, or those whose fear compromised their judgment and allowed such abuses.

Today, based on 9/11, the U.S. government spends hundreds of billions on homeland security. But you’re more likely to be struck by lightning twice in your life, than hit by international terrorism. Similarly, here’s one that really confuses liberals: the government also spends hundreds of billions on gun control – however, unless you’re in the illicit drug business, you are far more likely to be injured by household furniture than a gun.

Also: fear sells. Reason Magazine recently ran a story chronicling the “Most Absurd Time Magazine Covers.” They included ominous warnings of: the Occult Revival, the Porno Plague, the Population Curse, Dirty Words, Cyberporn, and Pokemon. All of which were either bogus or greatly overstated. Of course, these are all things to be concerned about. But its pretty absurd to spend all day making sure junior doesn’t watch Pokemon; if you yourself are behaving violently and irresponsibly right in front of the child. Both common sense and research show that children mimic the behavior of their parents far more than the TV (try showing this evidence to TV censorship advocates and see what happens).

So it would seem there is often a gap somewhere. A gap that exists between what we’re afraid of and what actually threatens us most. When we look at America’s financial situation, what is the difference between what we fear, and what is actually dangerous? I’ll call this the “Fear Divergence from Reality Gap;” the FDR Gap.

The Exaggerated Threat

When I was in high school, my shop teacher spoke of the most dangerous machine in his shop. It was not the loud, powerful rip saw or the sawdust-flinging table saw. It was not any of the big machines that my peers treated with absolute fear, as one might expect. Rather, it was the little, silent, slow-cutting band saw. The danger arose, not from its ferociousness, because it had none. The band saw was dangerous because nobody realized it was; due to its quaint nature. Mr. Benton ended up being correct. In my four years there, it was the only machine I ever saw cut into a person – which I saw twice.

Many people ask, “what will we do about all this China debt?” Politicians are increasingly voicing concern over China “calling in its debt.”

The United States federal government owes China somewhere around 750 billion dollars. Now that’s somewhere around 1/10 of U.S. yearly revenues. Its like a person who makes $1oo thousand a year taking out a loan for $10 thousand dollars. A good chunk of change, but payable. Heck, since last fall the U.S. has dropped over twice the China debt on bank bailouts and – what the Democratic Party calls – “economic stimulus.” Now, are you telling me we couldn’t come up with money to pay off China?

The real problem – that the media rarely talks about – is that quaint, silent, little bank in D.C.. The United States federal government owes the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (aka The Fed) over 4.2 trillion dollars.

This makes the debt to China look small. Its right around half U.S. yearly revenue and is 6 times what the federal government owes China. The Bush/Obama spending binge is likely to increase the debt. In fact, if all goes as planned, the U.S. would soon be barred from joining the European Union due to its debt to GDP ratio.

Andrew Jackson became famous for abolishing the American central bank. Earlier, Thomas Jefferson had said, “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

So why should we be concerned that the federal government owes a quasi-private bank a whole lot of money? We should, due to one word: inflation.

The Real Threat

No country has ever been destroyed by paying off its debt. But several have gone through horrible crisis’ because they inflated their currency to pay their debt.

Remember how baseball cards were so valuable in the 90’s? In fact, many collectables like Barbie Dolls and Star Wars toys, are valuable one day and worthless the next. Cards were rare in the 90’s and only a few people collected them. So baseball cards became very valuable when people started wanting them. When everybody and their brother started buying them, the companies increased production.

Baseball cards were coming out of everywhere. Even a poor kid like me had the 1987 complete set of Topps cards. In fact, Topps was the premier brand when I first started collecting. But Topps started printing so many cards that, by the time I became a teenager, they were virtually worthless. Topps became a junk-brand, used in the spokes of bicycles. Topps collectors were robbed of their card’s value as Topps would greedily print more cards.

The same thing happens with money. The dollar was once the world’s premier currency. But the U.S. government wanted to spend more money than it had. When more of it is printed, those who have money – lose buying power. You could say the value in their money is transferred to the newly printed money. Its like Topps deciding to print a million new copies of your rare Barry Bonds card. Part of the value in your card transfers to the newly printed cards – little by little, till all the value is gone except the value of the cardboard its printed on. The more they print, the more you’re taxed. Its called the “inflation tax.”

If you own pennies today, guess what: they’re weight in copper is worth more than 1 cent per penny. (However, its illegal to recycle them). So if you saved pennies back when we were kids – when a penny was worth its weight in copper – you’ll find that the government has printed tons of money since then. Your pennies were taxed, through inflation, till they were worthless.

The only question is how long the U.S. can print money till there is a crisis – like when $100 bills become worthless. Pres. Bush and Obama think we can go pretty far. If the Fed keeps increasing the amount of money we trade – like Topps cards – our currency could become worthless.

Adolph Hitler came to power harnessing the fear and humiliation created by inflation. In the 1920’s, Germany printed tons of money to pay the reparations of World War I. This inflation eventually made the paper more valuable than the denomination it was printed on. When German people’s money became worthless, mass starvation began. They turned to a charismatic man who’s promises of restoring peace and dignity seemed to be the only solution. Hitler later recalled, “The people are more amendable to the appeal of rhetoric than any other force.”

The U.S. is no stranger to inflation. President Gerald Ford wore campaign buttons that said, “Whip Inflation Now (WIN).” He declared inflation “public enemy number 1.” He failed to defeat this enemy. Luckily, President Jimmy Carter’s Fed Chairman Paul Volker and President Ronald Reagan did whip inflation in the 1980’s. But it is coming back again today because of all the current spending, which is reminiscent of the 1960’s “Guns and Butter” policies.

Milton Friedman’s classic saying always holds true: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” For all you free-spenders who blindly support the government’s spending binges, you are the problem. Your compassion is admirable, and I share it, but its greatly outweighed by your naivety. You’re being taken advantage of. The notion that we should “do something” because we are in fear of economic crisis, is ludicrous. The great irony is in how the government portrays itself kinda like alcohol; as the cause of, and solution to, all life’s problems.

Has the recent Bush/Obama spending binge really done any good, or has it gone to benefit those with political access in Washington? The problem in Washington is that the government treats money like a heroin addict treats heroin – and President Bush and Obama’s solution have been to feed the government more of its heroin.

Government officials know that recessions are necessary to clean the system of bad debt and unproductive activities. The government knows it can only start recession, not stop them. They know that recessions historically last 1-2 years regardless of government “doing something.” Government officials are more acutely aware of their inability to fix society’s alleged ills than they advertise. You see, nobody could seriously run on a platform of “I promise to be aware that I really cannot solve your problems, and frankly, your problems are good because they teach you what you’re doing wrong.”

Their real goal is to use fear of recession and job loss to justify printing more money for their pals. These politicians also know the power fear gives them to accomplish their goals. Most think the way Pres. Obama’s Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel does, who said, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” This would explain the mountains of wasteful pork in the so-called “Economic Stimulus Package.”

Don’t let politicians distract you with the China debt, when the Fed Debt is the real problem. It is the government’s real heroin. There are many things the government could and should be doing. But, if you want the government to save us from ourselves, maintain an international military presence, and spend money on us from cradle to grave, you have to realize the power you cede to the government in allowing them to try it; and its propensity to abuse that power. Furthermore, don’t say nobody warned you that we simply cant afford it.

Does the New Deal Prove Me Wrong?

Here’s a parting message for all you big spenders, who think I am wrong based on the fears and New Deal response to the Great Depression that began in 1929. The Great Depression and New Deal, by any account lasted until World War II in the mid-1940’s. Franklin Roosevelt began the New Deal programs in 1932.

In May 1939, before an important House committee, Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. said, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises….I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot.”

Resume

2009-07-07T13:15:00.000-07:00

Education

The Ohio State University
B.A. Political Science, Economics, 2006

University of Toledo
Juris Doctor Candidate, 2010

College Activities

OSU Debate Team, Phi Alpha Delta Pre-Law Fraternity, Journalist: U-Weekly Magazine, Student Counsel, High School Wrestling Coach at an Inner City School

Law School Activities

President: Federalist Society, Member: Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity, Coach: Softball Team, Columnist: Independent Collegian

Awards/Honors

Certificate of Appreciation from US Embassy in Kuwait and another from the Kuwaiti Chemical Defense Directorate, Army Achievement Medal twice, Korean "Manchus" Belt Buckle, placed at debate tournaments, Deans List

Experience

Law Clerk, Currently
Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, Columbus Ohio

Legal research and writing - mainly drafted memos on specific legal issues
Drafted complaints, answers to complaints, memos, letters, analyzed legal documents and other related tasks
Assisted with many kinds of cases including contracts, property disputes, constitutional cases and other types
Did a long-term academic research projects
Conducted background research on cases
Screened potential cases

Legal Intern, 2009
Wayne County Prosecutor, Detroit Michigan

Conducted preliminary examinations, aided prosecutors in various tasks related to hearings

Law Clerk, 2007-2008
Kerger and Hartman, LLC, Toledo Ohio

Legal research and writing assistant, interviewed clients, limited representation of clients
Drafted complaints, answers to complaints, memos, letters, analyzed insurance contracts and letters (basically, learned every aspect of how to file and answer law suits)
Assisted with many kinds of cases including contracts, murder, terrorism, sentencing, property disputes, constitutional cases and other types
Conducted background research on cases

Legal Research Assistant, 2007
Distinguished Professor William Richman, University of Toledo College of Law

Outlined legal principles in cases for the purpose of updating the text to Professor Richman’s work in “Jurisdiction in Civil Actions”

Government Contractor, 2006-2007
Delaware County Recorder Andy Brenner’s Office, Delaware Ohio

Managing a vast project of transferring old mortgage contracts records into computer files
Accompanied the Recorder to meetings and helping fund raise for his next campaign and helped with a campaign for Municipal Judgeship that he managed

Casework Intern, 2006
Joint Casework Office of U.S. Senators DeWine and Voinovich, Columbus, Oh

Advised constituents on how to proceed with finding a resolution to problems with federal agencies and what the Senator could do to help them
Interacted with constituents on behalf of the Senator – directed their concerns to appropriate place

Sergeant, US Army (Active Duty 1997-2000, Reserve 2000-2005)
Chemical Operations Specialist, Korea (1998) and Ft. Bliss, Tx (1999)

Specialized and advised commanders in Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Warfare
Managed/supervised all NBC operations in an Air Defense Artillery and a Military Police unit
Prepared and taught classes
Supervised training, equipment maintenance, and formally presented long and short term training plans and goals to commanders

Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2004-2005

Handled logistics and security operations for 7-10,000 troops, including entry gate, roving patrol and convoy operations
Prepared and taught NBC classes to Kuwaiti Army
Supervised soldiers handling numerous professional and personal issues as they arose
Achieved E-5 rank (Sergeant)

Republican Party County Coordinator, 2006
Ohio Republican Party, Delaware County Ohio

72 hour phone bank manager
Led efforts to identify and target voters throughout county – passing out literature, phone calls, organizing events
Worked hand-in-hand with Central Committee, candidates, campaign coordinators, local and state officials, party officials and volunteers
Spoke on behalf of the Ohio Republican Party before state and county organizations
Given high degree of autonomy with very high expectations, requiring self-teaching, self-motivation, and ability to quickly build a personnel network

Assistant Wrestling Coach, 2001 - 2003
Columbus East High School/ Boyton Beach High School, Columbus, Oh/ Boyton Beach, Florida

Assisted in developing and implementing training plans
Led practices, coached from mat-side during meets, managed several issues as they arose such as parental concerns, weight problems and discipline
Trained team in basics of wrestling, sportsmanship, conditioning and health and nutrition
Journalist, 2005

Journalist, 2005-2006
U-Weekly Magazine, Columbus, Ohio

Assigned to high profile and controversial articles, researched stories and topics, advised in editing process, wrote articles
Worked with marketing and advertising
Acted on behalf of the magazine in managing relations on OSU campus

Respect for the Iranian's

2009-06-19T09:03:00.000-07:00

I have followed Iran for years, and I am particularly inspired recently.

Americans love the romance of the revolutionary. Whether it be the mother speaking out against a public school conditions, or the loan libertarian at a political debate, or the county sheriff who calls out corruption when he sees it; there is something extraordinary about the person who takes the “road less traveled by,” as Frost would say.

The revolutionary is a dignified individual, who prefers the comfort of his home and family. But he is ready when called to the defense of his principles. He doesn’t need to hire a lawyer to tell him the difference between right and wrong. Like William Wallace from the movie "Braveheart," the revolutionary doesn’t look for a fight, but he doesn’t back down from one either. Fighting means taking a few punches and that is hard. But to the revolutionary, those punches are preferable to the ease of conformity, acquiescence, and complacency which equal slavery.

The founding fathers of the U.S. flew a flag that had a rattle snake on it and said, “Don’t Tread on Me.” The rattler is not an offensive creature, but a defensive one. Until you invade his territory and threaten him, he will mind his own business. He even uses his rattle to warn you not to cross the line.

Like the rattlesnake, the revolutionary strikes with ferocity when the life he cherishes is threatened. But its not about security and prosperity. Its about freedom and the notion that some things are worth dying for.

The founders spoke at length of how they would prefer to spend their time at their farms, rather than fighting in the cold. But the revolutionary cannot sit in comfort while there is oppression.

In the 1980’s, I grew up admiring mythological rebels like Luke Skywalker. His home was destroyed and family murdered by the government. He was destine to fight by powers beyond his control. He fought for the “Rebel Alliance” against the evil empire. It was no mistake that he was aided by the cowboy-esce criminal smuggler Han Solo. It was also no mistake that the “bad guy” in the story was the government – in this case democratically elected.

As a child, I also learned of real legends like Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt, and others. Peaceful, dignified resistance with a preparedness and willingness to fight is the key to success. As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." The desire for peace changes hearts and minds - while the willingness to fight lets the bullies of the world know that slavery is too high a price to pay for peace.

No ideology precludes a person from respecting those who fight for what is truly right – rather than for personal or group benefits. That’s why I am so inspired by Iran today.

Hundreds of thousands of people are peacefully protesting over in Iran. They’re not protesting for political gain like many American lobbyists, but rather a fundamental right to have a clean election. They’ve been cheated of their rights by a shameful government. They’re mad. They have a right to be. They are doing something about it.

The only question I have is about the lesson for America: how many punches are willing to take before we finally do something about our government?

The whole story recalls the lyrics to one of my favorite Metallica songs:
"Don't Tread on Me"

Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail
Once you provoke her, rattling of her tail
Never begins it, never, but once engaged...
Never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage

Don't tread on me

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is
to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you'll hear evermore...
"Don't tread on me"

Love it or live it, she with the deadly bite
Quick is the blue tongue, forked as lightning strike
Shining with brightness, always on surveillance
The eyes, they never close, emblem of vigilance

Don't tread on me

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is
to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you ll hear evermore...Don't tread on me

Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail
Once you provoke her, rattling on her tail

So be it
Threaten no more
To secure peace is
to prepare for war
So be it
Settle the score
Touch me again for the words that you'll hear evermore...Don't tread on me!

Having Your Healthcare & Eating it Too: An Abstract of Single Payer vs. Free Market System

2009-06-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

The basic problem with our healthcare system, is that we want to have a system that has all the benefits of a both a government-run (single-payer) and free-market healthcare system, but not the detriments of either. As the saying goes, "we want to have our cake, and eat it too."

In other words, we are trying to 1) make sure everyone who needs healthcare is never denied (the benefit of a single-payer system); but 2) still keep in place the natural “free-market” barrier to healthcare of monetary costs, which:

puts downward pressure on healthcare costs,
prioritizes who receives treatment (according patients who are willing to pay - thus reducing the long lines of single payer that undermine their system),
encourages preventive-health measures,
provides a profit-motive for innovation, and
leaves in place a natural modernization cycle (Government programs never go out of business, and frequently fall into a state of irreparable stagnation – governments are built not to embed policies, not update them. This is why the Soviet Union was an industrial powerhouse under Stalin, then soon fell way behind in the 1960’s. This is what is currently happening with our banking system: the government is preventing it from going through a modernization cycle.)

The government system has its benefits – that why Americans would prefer to have Canada’s system for routine care. Its relatively simple and tax-payer subsidized. However, the free market system has its benefits – that’s why people from the socialized countries come to the U.S. and pay when they need more than routine care, or don’t want to wait in long lines or when innovators want to try new ideas.

Unfortunately, we cant have both. Currently, the country is trying to retain all the benefits of the free-market system, while undermining the free-market operation at every turn by subsidizing care.

Frankly, the idea that either system would have substantially less problems than the current system, is naïve. What is particularly naïve is somebody having trouble paying for their healthcare and saying, “if only the government would just pay for me, then it would solve all our problems – you know, just like they solved all our problems in retirement, banking, energy, national defense ect!”

People who think this way do not understand the ripple effects caused by such policies. A perfect example of "unintended consequences" is the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in the last two years, due to U.S. subsidies of corn for ethanol. (Note: the U.S. subsidies raised the world price of corn – whenever we raise the price of corn even a fraction of a percent, thousands of people will then be unable to afford any food at all).

The best idea out there right now, is to make all health-care related expenses tax-deductible. This would at least keep some market principles in place, while allowing for at least some monetary relief. Plus it lowers taxes!

USA Today: Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink

2009-05-29T08:34:00.000-07:00

Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

click here for the actual article.
click here for some of my commentary on this issue.

Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.
That's the biggest leap in the long-term burden on taxpayers since a Medicare prescription drug benefit was added in 2003.
The latest increase raises federal obligations to a record $546,668 per household in 2008, according to the USA TODAY analysis. That's quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.
"We have a huge implicit mortgage on every household in America — except, unlike a real mortgage, it's not backed up by a house," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, the government's top auditor.

What if China "Calls In" its Debt?

2009-05-27T07:48:00.001-07:00

Click here - this article begs the question:
What if China "Calls in" its Debt?

We hear this question resonate throughout the American debate. The great fallacy is that we simply don’t owe China all that much money, relatively speaking. This question is a misnomer, a fallacy - a distraction.

The United States federal government owes China about 7 ½ billion dollars – which is a lot by itself. However, the United States federal government owes the Federal Reserve Bank well over 4 trillion dollars – which makes the debt to China look small.

To put the whole debt in perspective, think of this. Our federal government owes a little more than it makes every year – it makes around 7-8 trillion a year. The debt side is likely to increase substantially under President Obama’s recent spending binge. Half that debt is owed to the Federal Reserve. About 1/8 or 1/9 of that debt is owed to China.

For the Chinese – this is a lot of money. But to the U.S., it is payable. If China “called in” this debt, the U.S. could simply pay it off. This would be temporarily difficult, but doable. Simultaneously, China would lose all its financial leverage with the U.S. as the debt gets paid off. The Chinese are highly unlikely to give up this leverage any time soon.

Furthermore, the U.S. can always pay off its debt with its own currency, a luxury not afforded to most countries. This means that the U.S. can simply print money to pay off any institution that “calls in” its debt. This would create massive inflation, meaning that a dollar would buy less because it is worth less. This is because more paper money means that money already in circulation loses its real value. In other words, China would get their 7 ½ billion, but it would be in the form of inflated (less valuable) currency.

This has occurred several times in history, and is attributed to the fall of many “great powers.” Famously, this is what happened to Germany in the 1920’s, and contributed greatly to the rise of Adolph Hitler.

The Real Problem in the U.S.

The real issue to worry about is this: what will the U.S. do if the Federal Reserve “calls in” its debt?

Here is what could actually happen:

The Fed is a "quasi-government/quasi-private bank" and has real balance sheets to worry about. (Although nobody has access to these records. Congress often complains that it has more access to the CIA than the Fed. However, the "Audit the Fed Bill," HR 1207, now has over 150 co-sponsors in the House). The Fed could start to realize that it is becoming insolvent because its assets are being paid in its own increasingly worthless currency.

The Fed would then have only two choices: either 1) continue to finance debt till there is an inflation crisis, or 2) refuse to finance any more debt.

So, what will happen given these two choices? The answer is that there would be what economists call a “correction,” aka: a crisis. The U.S. has spent its paper money with reckless abandon, often building up long-term liabilities in the process. Because the U.S. refused to allow spending cuts for several years, it will be forced to pay the piper later.

Technically, this is inevitable, because:
1) if the Fed continues to finance debt, inflation will take over and the money will become worthless. In other words, all our employees, allies, hospitals and retirees would still get their checks – but the checks would not buy much.
OR
2) if the Fed stops financing debt, the U.S. federal government would have to cut about 25% of its spending overnight. All this “stimulus spending” would have to stop. Probably half the federal workforce would have to be laid off (and the federal government is the country’s largest employer). Medical and retirement spending would have to be slashed.

Either way, Milton Friedman’s classic saying still holds true: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Racheal Maddow and the Left Start to See Through the Obama Fog

2009-05-22T17:03:00.000-07:00

Here are my past blogs on this issue.

I often watch Rachael Maddow’s show, just to see how long I can watch before I have to change it. Its kind of like seeing how long you can hold your breath underwater before you faint. Given her abysmal ratings and far-left attitude, I am shocked she remains on the air.

As much as I despise Rachael Maddow, I am very glad to see her integrity on this issue. I expected her to defend Obama without restraint. Instead, she took a principled stand on the issue of imprisonment. Obama lied to the left to get their support, now they are starting to realize this. It has become clear that he is only different from Pres. Bush on a superficial level.

Imprisonment is a big problem in the U.S. generally - despite the fact that the Bill of Rights has more provisions for the accused than any other type of provision. America imprisons over 10% of its population, most of which is based on drug related convictions. The problem is so bad in California that the state plans to release a significant percentage of its inmates soon.

The way the accused are treated is something that separates the good guys from the bad guys. Our founders knew this. They built our law to have strong judiciary and justice system for this purpose. It is largely considered the best in the world.

I have argued from the beginning that Guantanamo would be a serious problem in this country because it conflicted strongly with our national values. Speculative fear that someone will commit a crime cannot justify imprisonment. I argued that imprisonment without any judicial oversight blurred the lines between who are the good guys in the War of Terror. I never felt we had to give them full Constitutional rights, but just some kind of hearing with transparency.

You see, it has gone widely unreported that Guantanamo holds people who are not even accused of terrorism. This is why the Bush and Obama administration do not want to release these individuals. They are actually holding people who have not done anything wrong – at least not by our standards (in China it is wrong to speak against the government).

For those who respect the “rule of law,” it was important that Obama change this glaring weakness in the Bush record. Unfortunately, it probably wont happen.

What is Obama's Tax Deferal Plan?

2009-05-19T08:26:00.000-07:00

You Cant Flip-Flop from Nothing

2009-05-17T17:22:00.001-07:00

Republicans salute Obama's military tack
Moves anger liberal Democrats
By Stephen Dinan (Contact) Sunday, May 17, 2009

Even as congressional Democrats feuded last week with the CIA in what at times seemed to be a throwback to the 1970s, President Obama was headed in the other direction in what may have been his most active week yet as commander in chief.
He pushed through the House a spending bill to finance the war in Afghanistan and reversed himself, deciding to fight the release of photos purportedly showing humiliating treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

see the rest here

My Comments:

As the Washington Times has reported, the press is finally starting to see through the Obama-fog.

Like many, I hoped President Obama would reverse the direction of President Bush’s administration on several issues. His large individual donor base and short time in Washington were signs of hope.

However, in just over 100 days, President Obama has broken many campaign promises…sort of. By reading the above article, you’ll see that the press is starting to see that. But you’ll also see that Obama’s staff has the perfect answer to Obama’s activity: “well, he didn’t really promise that.”

You cant flip-flop when you never really took a stand to start with.

Those of us who are discerning, saw this during the campaign. To us, Obama resembled a typical weak politician, often satirized in movies like “Swing Vote.” We saw that he lied on at least two major occasions during the campaign (i.e. his promises to fulfill his Senate term and to accept public funds for his campaign). He abandoned his life-long pastor and friend of over 20 years, who had married him and his wife. He voted “not present” a record number of times in Illinois. Unlike John Kerry, he lacked the time in the Senate to have a flip-flop record yet – which I believe he surely would have developed. And of course, he supported the Bush bailout.

A close look at Obama’s campaign will show that his supporter’s hopes that Obama would be the anti-Bush were largely a figment of their own imaginations – not his explicit, literal words. His campaign was so devoid of substance, that Obama could do practically anything, and still break only a few actual campaign promises. But certainly, people felt he was going to be a 180. He has let us all down.

What Promises?

Obama promised broad bipartisanship, saying “there are no red states or blue states, just the United States.” He has barely muster 3 or 4 Republican votes among well over 2 trillion dollars worth of spending.

He promised, "(I) will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." One would say this was a promise explicitly broken since the stimulus bill was passed literally 3 or 4 hours after the final draft was complete – and it was complete at around 2am. But then again, what is an emergency?

In addressing one of America’s biggest problems historically, which reached high proportions under Bush, Obama promised, “No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulation or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” On this one, Obama even signed an exectutive order to this effect.

Promise Kept?

No. Obama included a waiver which has been used to destroy the entire order. Recipients of the waiver include: William Lynn, Jocelyn Frye, Cecilia Munoz and Simon Johnson.

Some appointees have mind-boggling conflicts of interest, such as: Tim Geithner’s Chief of Staff Mark Patterson former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs who has helped run billions of dollars to Goldman. (Of course, this pales in light of Geithner’s own conflicts of interest with the bailout). Other major figures who were lobbyists include: Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Campaigning vs. Governing

It was easy for him to hide behind vague language, lofty oratory, and emotional appeals when he was an Illinois and U.S. Senator. However, it is much more difficult to do as President. When you are President, people start looking at two things: what you said you would do, and what you actually do. The press babied Obama through the campaign. Being able to avoid serious scrutiny, Obama could appease the far left and enough of the center to get by.

As President, Obama can no longer vote “not present,” as he did hundreds of times in Illinois.

Now Obama has made Bush’s bailout plan look like child’s play, made even more extensive arguments for government secrecy than Bush, refused to release photos of detainees, and actually escalated the “War on Terror.”

Still, his redeeming quality was that he was not George W. Bush. The country has clearly turned against many of Pres. Bush’s policies. However, Bush was just the puppet. The people pulling the strings remain the same with Obama. Therefore, we get a President who looks a lot like the candidate: empty, vague, shallow but a hell of a speaker.

The left is seething, the neo-conservatives are appeased. Obama thinks his personality will get him through it politically. However, his pathetic counterpart – Nancy Pelosi – is helping to expose the ugly underbelly of the far left.

Maybe the country will learn better next time: ask specific questions, demand specific answers. When a politician says nothing, he can later break few promises.

One thing I will give Bush credit for is that he said, "you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand." This is what we should expect from all of our presidents.

US 'sham' bank bail-outs enrich speculators, says buy-out chief Mark Patterson

2009-05-14T13:25:00.000-07:00

The Article can be found here.

My Related Articles:
Our Politician's Economic Message vs. Reality
"The Obama/Bush Philosophy vs. Free Society." the problem with centralized government

US 'sham' bank bail-outs enrich speculators, says buy-out chief Mark Patterson
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in DohaLast Updated: 6:16AM BST 14 May 2009

The US Treasury’s effort to stabilise the banking system through the TARP programme is a hopelessly ill-conceived policy that enriches speculators at public expense, according to the buy-out firm supposed to be pioneering the joint public-private bank rescues.

“The taxpayers ought to know that we are in effect receiving a subsidy. They put in 40pc of the money but get little of the equity upside,” said Mark Patterson, chairman of MatlinPatterson Advisers.
The comments are likely to infuriate Tim Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, because MatlinPatterson took advantage of the TARP’s matching funds to buy Flagstar Bancorp in Michigan. His confession appears to validate concerns that the bail-out strategy is geared towards Wall Street.

Under the convoluted deal agreed earlier this year, MatlinPatterson has come to own 80pc of the shares while the US government has ended up with under 10pc.
Mr Patterson said the US Treasury is out of its depth and seems to be trying to put off drastic action by pretending that the banking system is still viable.
“It’s a sham. The banks are insolvent. The US government is trying to sedate the public because they are down to the last $100bn (£66bn) of the $700bn TARP funds. They think they’re doing this for the greater good of society,” he said, speaking at the Qatar Global Investment Forum.
Mr Patterson said it would be better for the US to bite the bullet as Britain has done, accepting that crippled lenders must be nationalised. “At least the British are not hiding the bail-out,” he said.
MatlinPatterson said private equity and hedge funds were deluding themselves in hoping to go back to business as usual after the trauma of the last 18 months.
“This is not a normal recession and there will be no V-shaped recovery. The crisis has destroyed leveraged companies. We’re going to see a catastrophic increase in the number of LBO’s (leveraged buyouts) going into default because they’re knee-deep in debt and no solution exists since they can’t refinance,” he said.
“Alfa hedge funds have been making their money by gambling with excessive leverage, so the knife that cuts off leverage is going to cut off their heads as well,” he said.
Like many bears, Mr Patterson expects the great crunch to end in deliberate inflation, deemed a lesser evil than outright depression.
“The US government has thrown 29pc of GDP at this crisis compared to 8pc in the early 1930s. The Fed’s balance sheet has risen from $900bn to $2.7 trillion to bail out the system. America has to do it because the only way out is to debase the currency, but that is going to lead to some very high inflation three years down the road,” he said.
Matlin Patterson, however, has missed the Spring rebound, the most powerful rise in equities in over 70 years. “We shorted the equity rally because we thought it was lunatic. We’ve kept adding positions seven times, and we’re still holding,” he said. Ouch!

America’s triple A rating is at risk. Financial Times

2009-05-14T10:19:00.000-07:00

The Financial Times is reporting on how the U.S. is getting closer and closer to losing its triple A bond rating.

It has been widely cited that the U.S., soon, will not be eligable to join the European Union, due to its debt-GDP ratio. (Not that we would ever want to join, but you get the point).

Many people wonder why we are so concerned with Pres. Obama's massive spending. The answer is simple: we cannot keep doing what we are doing.

Pres. Obama campaigned on the platform that there were massive fundamental problems in the way we do business, and that he was the one who could bring everyone together to change it.

However, the walk and the talk have not coincided.

The problem was in the balance sheets. A balance sheet usually has two halves: liabilities and assets. In the liability column, the U.S. has extraordinary obligations, including health care, retirement accounts, welfare accounts, and straight money borrowing. Obama has already come close to doubling our liabilities. Currently, each child born in the U.S. has an over $11,000 mortgage placed on their income at birth. The asset column continues to shrink, as we produce less value, instead relying on phony financial schemes to produce money.

Obama attacked this problem by adding more spending than any president ever has. His theory is that this will create returns high enough to pay for the spending. Maybe this will work. But even if it does, it is a massive gamble to take with our economy. It has failed time and time again throughout history. To believe that it will work, is to believe that the U.S. can practically double its income producing assets in the next decade. This will take a lot more than "hope." Keep in mind a factor (which Obama has tried to refute): that most (but not all) government jobs are liabilities, not assets.

As this article helps explain, at some point, the chickens have to come home to roost. I especially like the comments in the above article on the so called "tax cuts," which should really be called spending increases.

The main savior for the U.S. is its ability to create its own paper money, and pay debts in its own currency. The Federal Reserve is, by far, the U.S.'s largest creditor. This quasi-governmental organization allows the U.S. government to lend to itself, and therefore forgive its own debt.

However, this send us down a slippery slope where we may lose the one thing that really holds it all together: faith in the U.S. system. If we lose this, we lose everything. The rest of the world largely keeps this faith because of its own stake in the stability of the system. However, many nations have begun to hedge against the U.S.

It would be impossible for any entity to run the way the U.S. has for so long. We have done the impossible for a long time in creating money and relying on our internal credibility. How long can we go till the levee breaks?

With life's battles already won, UFC's Matt Brown earning "immortal" tag

2009-05-12T14:06:00.000-07:00

With life's battles already won, UFC's Matt Brown earning "immortal" tag
by Alton Dunham on May 09, 2009 at 10:05 am ET

Finding success in today's UFC requires clean living, a dedication to a healthy diet and proper training. But not every rising star in the organization started their career by walking down the right path.

UFC welterweight Matt Brown (9-7 MMA, 3-1 UFC) recently revealed to MMAjunkie.com Radio (www.mmajunkie.com/radio) that before the bright lights of the octagon he had already won a different fight – a battle with illegal drug use that nearly cost him his life.

"I came really close to dying," Brown said. "I [overdosed] on heroin. … They said I was clinically dead for over a minute."

Brown believes his recreational drug use came from feelings of being trapped in a small town outside of Dayton, Ohio. "I was in that mindset that there was nothing else to do," Brown said. "I could get drunk everyday and I'll still be (stuck) here, or I could go to college and I'll still be (stuck) here. "[Overdosing] was one of the best things to happen to me. When that happened it woke me up and I was like, 'Man, I got to do something.'"

Brown's near-death experiences from drugs and street fights led to his friends dubbing him with his eventual fighter nickname: "The Immortal." "My friends were like, 'Man, you are [expletive] immortal, huh?" Brown said. "And I thought, 'If I could beat all of that stuff, I could beat anything.'"

For Brown, a chance viewing of Wanderlei Silva, who is now helping the Ohio-native prepare for his upcoming fight, proved to be the catalyst that led to a new life. "After [the overdose] happened, I was at home watching Wanderlei fight on TV and decided, 'I want to try this stuff – I've been in enough street fights," Brown said. "I was one of those dorks that thought, 'I could do that,' until I got into the gym and realized it was harder than it looked."

With a new passion, Brown juggled performing odd jobs and his mixed martial arts training, hoping that his commitment would eventually pay off. "Before I was in the UFC, I was working 60-70 hours a week," Brown said. "Then I would quit (each new) job to train a month out and rely on winning the fight to pay my rent."

That was Matt Brown's world nearly five years ago. Today, the "The Ultimate Fighter 7" cast member has relocated to Las Vegas and has only one job in life – to win his next fight. To do so he has dedicated himself to remaining focused, and to being completely sober. "When I decided I was going to fight seriously, I decided I wasn't going to do (any drugs) anymore," Brown said.

"Now, I am 100 percent clean. I barely even drink Red Bull any more. I try to keep everything ultra-organic and ultra-clean. "These days, I just keep my eyes on the prize. I worked too hard to get here to do something stupid and mess it up."

The UFC welterweight has a new vice: a drive for championship gold. "Having a belt around my waist will feel better than any drug you can put in me," Brown said. The road to a title shot for the Brown will next lead to fellow up-and-comer Anthony "Rumble" Johnson (7-2 MMA, 4-2 UFC), who – like Brown – is currently on a hot streak. The two are set to meet at "The Ultimate Fighter: U.S. vs. U.K." live finale in June. "Both of us are coming in with two-fight win streaks, and our last fights were both big knockouts," Brown said.

"So this works out really well." The inspirational Brown knows that a win over Johnson might propel him near the top of a stacked welterweight division. He also feels that after overcoming so much adversity, he is finally peaking at just the right time. "I feel like coming into the UFC I have finally come into my own," Brown said.

"I really have my mind right, and I am fighting to my potential."

MMAjunkie.com Radio broadcasts Monday-Friday at noon EST (9 a.m. PST) live from the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino's Race & Sports Book. The show is hosted by Gorgeous George, professional fighter Frank Trigg and producer Goze. For more information or to download past episodes, go to www.mmajunkie.com/radio.

Deficits soar even with rosy assumptions in new Obama budget

2009-05-11T19:31:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — The White House on Monday projected 2009 and 2010 federal budget deficits far higher than it forecast just two and a half months ago, even as it continued to defy most experts and predict that the economy is headed for a strong comeback starting late this year.

"If they keep playing this game, they're going to have real credibility problems," predicted Brian Bethune, the chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight, an economic research firm.
The new administration budget said

Click here for the rest of the Article....

My Commentary:

In September of 1999, I was in the active duty Army at Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas. I was two months from finishing my term. One particular day, I was leaving a recruiter’s office on post and thinking about the future.

I was deciding whether to renew my contract, enter into the Army Reserves or leave altogether. I decided to join the Reserves and use my college money. I remember thinking to myself that I could not imagine the United States being involved in a major war. Its not that I ever minded the idea of going to war, I just wanted it to be for a good purpose, like in World War II. Not a quagmire like Vietnam.

Exactly two years later, 9/11 occurred. The impossible, the unreal and the unthinkable happened – the United States was in the first crisis of my lifetime. My father had lived through the seventies stagflation, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam. My Grandfather’s lived through the Great Depression and Pearl Harbor. Now it was our turn.

Which is what has me so concerned today. People of our generation have never experienced a real financial crisis. It is only something that we read about in history books (at least those of us who read history). In fact, even older people seem to think the U.S. economy is invulnerable and the dollar will maintain confidence no matter what. Well, I am writing this to say that this is fantasy. Just like real estate prices were a fantasy two years ago, the dot.coms were a fantasy 12 years ago and world peace was a fantasy on Sept 10, 2001. Disasters do occur and they do hit home.

Take a look at the above chart. It is staggering. And this is just the beginning of the estimates. The government has already committed far more money to the current financial crisis than the U.S. spent on the entire New Deal and World War II. So the question becomes: are we solving a crisis with investment money? Are we creating a new crisis to solve the current one? Or are we doing something else?

Well what is the worst that could happen? The answer is inflation, debasement of the currency and loss of confidence in the dollar. If this happens the U.S. is in a lot of trouble. If we are to know what will happen, we need only look at places where it has happened. This is not something I want for my country. But many of us will oppose this as much as we can. We will look for leaders who will stand up for the Constitution and conscientious policy. Soon the disasters will occur and new champions of freedom will emerge, as did Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Hopefully we will be relieved of the nausea induced by these fake conservatives we got in the 2008 elections.

Many of us will hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. The politicians certainly are good at encouraging the first part of that saying; but what about the second part?

Supreme Court Takes on Racial Discrimination Case

2009-04-20T10:24:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court is poised to take on a new racial discrimination case. An article about it can be viewed here.
After reading the article, see my thoughts below.

It has been said by the court that the best way to end racial discrimination is to stop discriminating. I agree. Frederick Douglas spoke at length about meritocracy. He believed, as I do, that black people are fully capable of achievement without anymore help than anyone else, and it is insulting to suggest otherwise. He believed that government efforts to correct discrimination create cultural dependency and become crutches that prevent individual people from learning to experience real achievement. Plus, such attempts are usually half-hearted or well disguised attempts to maintain the status quo. You would think that someone who is discriminated against would have far less faith in the discriminators ability or willingness to correct the discrimination.

Douglas famously said, “Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us...If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs... If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man.”

In this case, there may be real discrimination present. But you don’t attack that discrimination by leaving it be, and simply lowering the bar for those discriminated against. Doing this will leave that discrimination in place forever, create a sense of entitlement to the victims and hurt the performance of the fire department.

A Real Explanation of the Mortgage Crisis

2009-03-21T15:03:00.000-07:00

Our Politician's Economic Message vs. Reality

2009-03-18T00:06:00.000-07:00

Our politician's message proposes that credit, spending and jobs (simply for the sake of jobs) is the key to economic prosperity. We are increasingly being told that we must allow our money to be used to "bailout" failing firms and protect existing jobs, due to systemic risks.

But a few questions are never asked, for example: if these bailouts are so important to our prosperity, then why do they have to forcibly tax us to pay for the bailouts? Why dont they take charitable donations for this purpose? The answer is that nobody would willingly give their money to bailout failing businesses.

The fact is that history, experience and common sense guide us in a different direction. The politician’s argument go further to say that the government should intervene to keep credit flowing, keep people spending (rather than saving), and create government jobs to keep the economy afloat. These are the great falsehoods of our time.

In a free economy, the basic incentive to efficiently accumulate wealth through value creation. This essay will show how these incentives create a cycle which guides people to their most efficient role in society.

This cycle is the real life-blood of the economy. People who engage in value creation activity, build up assets - those assets are then siphoned off (through taxes and inflation) to pay for those whose activity is a liability, such as prisoners, welfare recipients (corporate, international and individual), most government employees, and others.

What is Value Creation?

Creating value is simple: one creates value, essentially, by exchanging goods and services for other goods and services of more value. For example, I might trade a dollar for a candy bar, if the candy bar is more valuable to me than the dollar. Or if I work a job, I have to produce more money than the employer pays me. To the employer, the time is more valuable than the costs. To me, the pay is more valuable than my time/labor. Presumably, the product or service is worth more to the customer than the price to receive it. All three parties create value this way. When a whole society does this, it is an efficient economy that begins to benefit everybody.

As people exchange goods and services for other goods and services of greater value, competition to create value drives prices down, quality up. Newer, better goods and services result over time. People also begin to store or invest part of the value they create. This is the process of wealth accumulation. By accumulating wealth, one can continually benefit from the investments in value creation over time. The constant incentive to create value and accumulate wealth drives the society into a state of affluence.

The Importance of the Job Cycle

Of course, the fun part is enjoying added value – the hard part is dealing with removing inefficiencies from the economy which obstruct or burden the process.

Many people complain about job losses as if there is no redeeming quality to the phenomenon. In fact, sometimes more than a job is lost – sometimes an entire sector of the economy is lost, with major businesses that have thousands of employees. Job losses are certainly painful for real people, and we, as a civilized people, should be sympathetic toward that plight. However, allowing job losses is, unfortunately, an absolutely necessary part of a well functioning economy.

Job losses occur when the employee or business is no longer creating value. Employees and businesses that create value stay, those that cost value are moved to more efficient roles. This is not always the business or employee’s fault, for example, a new technology could simply make the job obsolete, a contractual obligation could hamper value creation, competitors might find better ways to create value and take market share, or the company might not be using the employee efficiently. But the principle remains the same - existence in the market is dependant on merit - and merit is based on value creation.

How This Usually Works:
When a person is laid off or a business goes under, they then search for a new way to make money. To do this, they must figure out how they can create value for others through some exchange. When they find their new job, they move from a value destroying role, to a value creating role - they transition to a more efficient job.

The anecdotal stories are hard to hear, as the new role may pay less or the people may have to endure hardship. But enduring this hardship and allowing the job cycle is what makes the U.S. the strongest economy on Earth. Also, the risk of job losses drives people to take responsible measures such as saving money and increasing their job-market value by accumulating skills and education.

Often, governments will try to intervene to stop the job loss process. By doing so, inefficient jobs remain – meaning that employees stay in the market who are costing more value than they are creating. Nancy Pelosi has said we should bail out a failing newspaper (ironically one which has long supported her career). Clearly this newspaper is not creating value for consumers and advertisers or it would not be in financial trouble. Consumers clearly feel their money is more valuable than the newspaper. Protecting inefficient producers can destroy the value creation process which makes an economy function well.

In fairness to the liberal point of view, sometimes by giving a life-line of money, a business can change their model and become efficient. Harley Davidson is a good example of this in the 1980's. However, there are several reasons why widespread use of this practice is dangerous. Besides the lack of fairness and political corruption, a culture grows up around the protected jobs – essentially, the people involved begin to ask what the taxpayers/government can do for them, rather than what they can do to add value for someone else.

Credit vs. Savings
Credit is a way of spending future earnings. By brokering the transaction today, the creditor can make money by charging interest. Certainly, there is a value creation element to credit – the money today is more valuable than it is when the payments come due. Well invested borrowed money can earn returns for the debtor and pay back interest for the creditor.

However, credit that goes toward spending or malinvestment puts a liability on future value creation. A piece or maybe all of future earnings must go to pay for money already spent. This process reduces accumulation. This principle remains true whether we are discussing a person, business, municipality or country (including the U.S.).

The Problem With Our Direction
The U.S. government is so indebted that it cannot help but heavily burden future value creation. Adding more debt and more spending can do nothing but hamper future value creation and wealth accumulation. However, the U.S. government has a tool that no other institution has in the U.S., which is inflation.

History shows that governments, when faced with massive debts and overburdened taxpayers, simply print money. By printing money, it reduces the value of current money holdings. It is a way of robbing value from money-holders. Awareness of this problem is paramount.

Opposition to the government’s current direction is needed, in large mass. We must encourage policies which encourage value creation and protect wealth accumulation.

"The Obama/Bush Philosophy vs. Free Society." the problem with centralized government

2009-03-12T12:59:00.000-07:00

Pres. Obama campaigned hard on an anti-Bush platform. However, as a president, Obama continues to look more like President Bush everyday. Both seem to believe very strongly in a centralized "savior" government; one that creates a problem then saves you from it. But then again, so have many political leaders in the U.S.

Since Franklin Roosevelt was President, the U.S. has seriously wrestled with whether a free society is worth protecting and whether the Constitution should remain in full effect. Many people believe that individual people will not make good decisions on their own, and therefore the guiding hand of central government is needed. So there has been a movement to centralize industries such as banking, farming, education, the press, and countless others. In conjunction with this assault has been an outright assault on private property, contractual rights, and people’s pocket books – basically any kind of economic freedom.

There are pros and cons to such a centralized government. The pros are that the controlling institution is given the resources necessary to deal with practically any problem that arises. Without such resources, there supposedly would not be not power by which the U.S. government could fight a major war, or save victims of major natural disasters or salvage economic problems. The argument says that people would have to face such problems without a government-savior.

I would not agree with that contention, but, as I will address in this essay, the cons are impossible to ignore. Centralized planning makes human mistakes (such as real estate bubbles) magnified in size, scope and length. It puts a burden on the planners to figure out how to deal with millions of unique problems – the result of which are blanket policies which ill-serve any particular case. It puts a massive tax liability on every person who sits under the central planners, as they require more and more resources to deal with problems (in fact, the problem always seems to be that they just need more money!).

Worst of all, this centralized system takes away a person’s right to refuse to partake in the system. For example, if I oppose a war, or a financial bailout, I must still contribute to it whether I like it or not. A free society would stress giving people as much of a choice as possible. We have seen such a firm belief in centralized planning and many people have developed a visceral hatred for the idea of personal freedom. Freedom is said to be selfish and an impediment to “progress.” They even despise the idea that something like Social Security – a program supposedly designed to benefit the tax payer – should be voluntary.

Finally, centralized planning empowers a few people in a distant place, to make decisions for everyone else, which significantly reduces individual freedom. If the fruits of my labor are taken from me, I lose the freedom to use that money as I see fit. So as a result, my power to make such a decision is transfered to the government, which then decides for me who will be “bailed out.” They almost always choose those with political access -- firms like Citibank, General Motors or Fannie Mae. If people in this country really wanted to bailout these firms, than why don’t we make contributions to the bailout voluntary? Why cant people decide for themselves what is to be done?

The answer is clear and results from another major problem with central planning -- that it rewards those with access to the central planners. This leads to outright corruption. Since the U.S. centralized its banking system, a few firms are now “too big to fail.” Any "systematic risk" involved with the failure of these banks results from the centralization of them into an oligopily. But lets be honest, it has become clear that the bailouts are not based on so-called “systemic risk,” but rather political access. With half the money they spent, they could have bought every single mortgage outright. Plus, the government did not even use the bailout money for what it said it would. The firms are using the money to privatize profits but make risk public. Then the hypocrites in Congress, waste tax-payer money like crazy, then call meetings to lecture the very CEO’s they empowered.

We were taught by our founders that this is the very reason that our decentralized system of government was a matter of “common sense.” They understood that a people cannot be governed by afar, by elites who are far removed from individual problems. Governments always want to centralize the system because it gives them and their associates more power. Granted, it would give them the power to fix bigger problems -- but also the power to cause bigger problems as well.

So is it any surprise that when two quasi-governmental firms own the vast majority of American's mortgages, that we have a meltdown that is supposed to be paid for by our tax dollars? Is it any surprise that these companys are major donors to the politicians themselves? And then they want us to believe that our problems can be solved by those in Washington D.C., a notion that is laughable.

President Bush demonstrated a firm belief in centralized planning, although I question whether his motive was ideological or political. Some examples include: The No Child Left Behind Act, Medicare expansions, his housing bill and his $800 billion dollar "bailout package" (designed to correct the damage done partially by his housing bill).

Now President Obama is continuing this approach. He was the second highest recipient of donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Chris Dodd. He has sought, in his first month, to drastically expand the role of government in people's lives. He has already added massive liabilities to America's future earnings, manifesting a belief that the government knows better how to spend that money.

For this audacity, his legacy may be greatly harmed.

The Abuse of Free Markets as Merely a Marketing Scheme

2009-03-12T12:57:00.000-07:00

Financial Times recently published an article which questioned where our country goes from here, in regards to economic philosophy, given that confidence in free markets has been shaken. Although such confidence has certainly been shaken, the doubts seem to be based on problems not created at all by capitalism; prompting me to recall a wonderful saying that, “Corporate Welfare is not Capitalism.”

Many people thought that President George W. Bush was a conservative. He was a Republican and most Republicans are associated with conservatism. Conservatism is often associated with a visceral faith in capitalism. This ideological link can be traced back to the early 20th century and was cemented in modern times by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and the Newt Gingrich Congress.

There was a time when capitalism was the consensus view in the U.S., largely due to a backlash created by centuries of European mercantilism. When the U.S. was founded, its purpose was, abstractly, to create the first free society on Earth, at least in regards to citizens. The founders knew that the greatest threat to such liberty and prosperity would be the very government created to protect it. That vision was embraced, expanded and wrestled with for over 230 years now. Conservatives often claim to be the guardians of these ideals of the American Revolution.

However, many Republicans are neither Conservatives nor believers in free markets, but say they are. Meanwhile, many Democrats, especially so-called "blue dog Democrats," do embrace such policies. This is probably because a free-market element has become necessary in national political marketing campaigns, because people in this country have come to see how important a free system is. However, in practice, many Republicans have chosen to embrace important themes which run contrary to all that capitalism, conservatism and the U.S. Constitution stands for. These integrity-lacking Republicans should be identified for what they are, and outright rejected by the Republican Party. President Bush was one of these Republicans (another good link for this here).

In recent years, there has been a movement by Republicans to engage in corporate welfare in the name of free markets. President Bush believed very strongly in centralized planning and government empowerment. (I speak specifically on why these things are so bad in another blog). He seemed willing to undermine the free market constantly. Sure, he signed what he called a “tax cut,” but these menial tax rebates were an insult to tax payers, in the face of substantially increased government spending, and his promises to overhaul the tax code.

Bush rarely even claimed to be a conservative, outside of social issues. If you look at his education plan, health care plan, and general spending - his is presidency looks more like Pres. Lyndon Johnson's than any other president and he has often openly compared himself to Pres. Harry Truman. Both were liberal Democrats. Bush is also known widely as a “neo-conservative,” which is, in fact, a type of liberal because of the neoconservatives adopt the views of Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson in regards to spreading democracy overseas. Also, instead of a conservative, Bush referred to himself as a “compassionate conservative.” In hindsight, that means he was a liberal Republican. In fact, he has even been quoted as saying that he “threw his free market principles out the window.” President Obama and Cong. Barney Frank have criticized Pres. Bush as a "deregulator." However, Yale Law professor Johnathan Macey has reported on the evidence that president Bush substantially increased government regulation of the economy. In fact, President Bill Clinton was much more of a free marketer than Pres. Bush, and continues, rightly, to stand by his deregulations. (As reported by Reason magazine on November 21, 2008 in an article entitled "Obama's Clinton Problem.")

This being the case, Bush should never be regarded as a conservative or adherent to free markets. Championing free market capitalism was a marketing scheme used to win elections and pacify the conservative base. If actions speak louder than words, than Bush’s presidency is no indictment of a free market system – in fact, it is very good piece of evidence to argue in favor of such a system.

The answer to “what direction should we go from here?” is clear. We should return to our basic American values of a capitalist system: enforcing the plain meaning of the Constitution, empowering individuals to make choices for themselves, seeking a system that values individual economic rights and a free economy. When people like Barney Frank and other attack such a system, they are actually saying that people cannot be trusted to be free and to make their own choices – they need a government to do so for them. A centralized system, which looks to government as the constant savior, is doomed to long term failure.

President Obama clearly shares Bush’s faith in government centralization and reduced individual empowerment. Our economy will suffer because of it.

How to Deal With Debt - Great Video

2009-03-11T15:19:00.001-07:00

Is Obama Causing the Current Economic Problems?

2009-03-05T09:51:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal published an article which blames President Obama for the current economic problems. Now, even one of his ardent supporters, Jim Cramer, is saying Obama is to blame.

I couldn't blame Pres. Obama for the current economic crisis, because he simply isn’t to blame for the existing problem. However, he is exacerbating the problem.

The problem was that there was a bubble in real estate values and a lot of bad lending; due to artificially low interest rates and lax lending standards-exacerbated by high tax rates. The banks are being punished for their part in this by the market - by losing money and going bankrupt.

The fact is, this crisis is not the problem, it is the solution - just like punishing a child is a solution to bad behavior. The market is cleaning itself out by removing these bad borrowers and bringing real estate prices down to market values.

Instead of letting this happen, Obama clearly wants to go back to the bubble and get a bunch of Democrat pork in while he's at it. Even the Congressional Budget Office agrees - there will be a short-term stimulus, and long term economic loss because he is burdening U.S. assets with severe liabilities.

The economy was hurt by the mortgage crisis, as described above, then Pres. Bush made it worse with his "bailout" package (which Sen. Obama supported). When Obama got elected, the economy was going to take a hit anyway, which always happens with a new President - because markets crave predictability. The market does not know what to expect with a new President. Predictability is how you make money! People in the market care about this more than anything, because even if the system is bad, if they understand the system and how it will function, people will make money.

Now Obama enacts massive liabilities and a completely different kind of economy. The market has no idea what to expect. This is destroying predictability - except in regards to the fact that we know to expect enormous pressure on taxes and inflation due to our new liabilities. Obama just basically sent an $11,000 bill to every person in America, on top of our current liabilities, which amounted to over $70,000 per person.

Obama's philosophy is that the government can handle our taxes so well, that we will essentially grow our way out of the problem. As his plans come into effect, the economy will recover because the market will adjust to Obama’s new economy. It will become predictable at some point…probably. However, the massive liabilities will burden value and wealth creation for at least three generations.

Court May Revive Privilages and Immunities Clause

2009-02-20T10:40:00.001-08:00

Investing Legend Jim Rogers Speaks on the Economy

2009-02-19T13:54:00.001-08:00

The Irony of the Roberts/Obama Botched Swearing In

2009-02-04T16:30:00.000-08:00

During the swearing in of President Obama by Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts, both Obama and Roberts flubbed the words. I found this ironic, considering it seems that Obama may not really take the oath seriously to start with. I hope I am wrong.

First of all, the oath-taker swears or affirms that he will “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This was significant when first written, considering that our predecessors took oaths to Kings, or a government or something like that. We swear to a piece of paper with writing on it. And this is the same oath taken by entering Congressmen, Judges, federal officials; I personally took this oath twice before joining the Army.

But one thing that many people forget is that this is not just some off-hand promise – this is an oath to God himself. It is unfortunate that, in the United States, we seem to have lost the importance of a person’s word. But are we even surprised, considering the U.S. divorce rate of over 40%, even among those who make an oath to God to respect the institution of marriage “till death do us part?” Despite the lack of surprise, however, the importance of such an oath can still not be overstated, regardless of how dishonest some, or even a majority of people may be. A person’s integrity, especially to God, is still his most important asset - at least as far as I'm concerned.

Part of the oath for those who serve in the Military is that you will obey the orders of those appointed above you. This was very difficult for me. Often the people appointed above you are not the most intelligent or well intentioned individuals. Obviously there is some underlying assumption that the people appointed above you will have some reasonable level of competency and integrity. However, I often followed orders I disagreed with and did not have to follow, simply because I had taken an oath to do so. If I was told to do something at 1 am, I was there at 1 am whether I was monitored or not - because I knew that at least God would be watching no matter what. I could not break my oath to him as long as the Army upheld some reasonable standard in regards to its end of the deal. I should expect the same from President Obama.

Here is another important note: the oath-taker takes an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" – as opposed to an oath to protect and defend the American people, the U.S. government, the U.S. economy or Supreme Court precedents. The Constitution is not only the supreme law of the land, but it is superior to all other considerations. The premise is that if the principles outlined in this document are protected, then everything else will fall into place – it is not the destruction of our people, economy or government that we are to fear, but rather the destruction of the principles which make them work and worth defending. Roosevelt famously said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." This is true, but only because fear can lead us to destroy the very Constitution which gave rise to our security and prosperity to start with. The Constitution does not ask that much of us. Mainly it demands basic respect for humanity, respect for both individual-economic AND individual-social rights, presumption of innocence and limited governmental power. It is often vague and ambiguous. However, there are some points which are spelled out clearly.

Some have argued to me that the Supreme Court members, when making Constitutional decisions, should look to the precedents which were set by Courts before them. I find this argument incompatible with the oath of office taken by the Justices. Again, they do not take an oath to God to protect and defend the precedents, only the Constitution itself. If the Constitution itself conflicts with the precedents, the Constitution should always win.

This brings about the question of what should be questioned when the Constitution is at issue. Some say the Constitution is a “living document” and that its meaning changes with time. Certainly, the meaning of certain principles changes with the times, however, the real question is where should our commitments lie? Are we committed to preserving the principles of the Constitution as it was written, or some principles that Judges and Presidents decide on along the way?

As stated before, the central premise is that if we protect and defend this document, the vast majority of our commonly human problems will be avoided, while simultaneously allowing the succeeding generations the ability to deal with the various problems that come up along the way. For example, the Constitution clearly did not protect black people from slavery, and actually had certain provisions which helped entrench slavery. However, years later, this same Constitution provided the tools which made the abolishment unquestionable (the 13th amendment) and also provided the tools for the social movement which would bring black people through the civil rights movement. It is the protection of this document, through all of its tools (sometimes including the amendment process) that protect our nation from certain problems which would hinder us from preserving our security and prosperity.

In 1937, a revolution began the process of undermining the Constitution. The very document current Presdient Roosevelt was sworn to protect, he despised openly as he famously said that it was written for the time of “horses and buggies.” He openly admired the way Mussolini’s Italy was run, which was certainly not in keeping with our Constitutional principles of decentralized government. After having his revolution hindered for several years by the Courts which consistently found his socialist programs to be unlawful, Roosevelt then succeeded in packing the Court with judges who did not care about U.S. law as it was written. They created a new body of law which is based on judicial opinions, and not the Constitution – often called the view of the “living Constitution.” In my humble view, he broke his oath to God. To me, this leaves me with little to no respect for the man, regardless of how he may be characterized by some historians. (It should be noted that many historians have seriously questioned the hero-worship he has received).

We cannot know whether Justice Roberts is any better. He is a member of the Federalist Society, which is an organization which seeks to defend the view I am promoting. However, its most prominent member, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has undermined the Constitution as well. For example, in a case called Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Scalia rationalized ignoring the plain English meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the Bill of Rights. Many people may not like this, since this was a drug case, as a matter of opinion. However, the language of the document could not be more clear and there is an amendment process to deal with such objections. This is why I prefer Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence. He understands, much greater than Scalia, that Supreme Court precedent is subordinate to the Constitution itself.

So, although we cannot know so early how Robert's jurisprudence will come out, it is certain that Roberts will not completely ignore the Constitutional text, as his colleagues Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens have – showing no regard for parts they do not personally approve of, and seeking erroneous intellectual justifications for opinions based on unconstitutional precedent, rather than the Constitution itself. Breyer actually has gone so far to say that certain opinions are “pretty well settled,” rather than even bothering to refer to the actual text of the Constitution. Although Roberts is a President Bush appointment (and President Bush was not exactly known to be a champion of the Constitution) President Bush's appointees tended to be very good jurists. It is especially note-worthy that President Bush almost never won a case in front of his own appointees.

Obama has been clear where he stands. He is a former Constitutional Law professor and University of Chicago. He is part of the crowd which seeks to undermine the protections of the Constitution that he does not like, promoting the idea that the Constitution is supposed to change as certain politicians and judges change. Again, because of this lack of respect for a divine oath, and the Constitution itself, I found the botching of the swearing in itself ironic. Although both Obama and Roberts are to blame for the mistakes, we know that Obama, like far too many married couples today, and many soldiers I worked with who disobeyed orders, probably simply does not take the oath to God seriously.

I hope I am wrong. We will see in the coming years.

Peter Schiff Calls it Right!

2009-01-03T09:37:00.001-08:00

How Reagan and Volker Tamed the Economy & What Obama Should Know

2008-12-11T21:35:00.000-08:00

Support Ear Mark Fighter, Jeff Flake, for Appropriations

2008-12-05T15:47:00.000-08:00

Rep. Flake has made a name for himself on the Hill for his stalwart stand against the practice of earmarking. He consistently puts the spotlight on Members who do through his weekly “Egregious Earmark” press releases and frequent speeches on the House floor to call out members of both parties for wasting the taxpayers’ money.Jeff Flake is serious about reigning in spending and has done an incredible job to date. But he can do even more by attacking the issue at its choke-point; from inside the Appropriations Committee. Leader Boehner together with members of the Republican Steering Committee; Roy Blunt (R-7, MO), Eric Cantor (R-7, VA), John Carter (R-31, TX), and Adam Putnam (R-12, FL), will ultimately decide who fills the current vacancy on the committee. Contact them today and let them know Jeff Flake is the right man for the job.

Click here to help Rep. Jeff Flake!

Here are videos of Rep. Flake fighting earmarks.

Obama's Non-Ideological Mission: End Corporate Welfare

2008-11-15T20:08:00.000-08:00

I believe Barrack Obama was elected because of several reasons, but two were particularly important: he comes off as being personally above the ideological fray and he seems trustworthy. Although I am not so naive as to actually believe this about a politician before he proves it, I am extremely optimistic. In fact, one good thing about the recent election was that I felt both McCain and Obama were the two very honest men; in a race that was more likely to feature the opposite.

Although I believe this country needs a true Conservative-Libertarian Republican President to bring the country back to a free-market balance, more importantly, right now we just need genuinely honest leadership. Ideology is not the issue right now. Before that can be addressed, the new president needs to address a much more fundamental non-ideological issue: basic corruption and political favoritism. President Obama will have his chance come January.

The recent bailout, which Obama supported and voted for, has exposed a disgusting face of the federal government. There is nothing new about corruption or political favoritism, but the degree has gotten out of control and has become blatant. Washington's strategy is simple: further irresponsible policies for their own gain, claim there is a crisis resulting from them, and use the crisis response to benefit themselves further. The rhetoric of both the conservative and liberal ideologies have been hijacked and greatly abused by corrupt politicians to reach this end.

Since the founding of the United States, the industry which has always had the most political access is the banking and finance industry. Immediately upon the founding, the founding fathers began debating the role government would play in banking, including questions of whether to create a national bank and whether the federal government should acquire debt.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison adamantly advocated for no federal central bank, Jefferson saying, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Soon after the founding a national bank was created. Andrew Jackson later abolished it in the 1836. It was a move that made him a folk hero. Another central bank was created to finance the Civil War. In 1914 the Congress wanted to create a new central bank, but in order to avoid calling it a central bank, they called it a “Federal Reserve.” The ability to create and borrow money from abroad brought enormous power and was highly addictive. The banks played an enormous role in the United States entering World War I, despite the fact that the United States had no security interest in the war and the people of the country were extremely clear they did not want to be involved in that war. President Wilson had run on an anti-war platform and used propaganda techniques which would never be tolerated today (for example, the Espionage Act and Sedition Act).

Later, Henry Ford was quoted as saying, “It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Today, we are removed from the era where central banks are seen for the corrupting institutions that they are. All the while, the United States seeps deeper and deeper into debt. The Federal Reserve secretly spends obscene amounts of money (far into the trillions) on things which most U.S. citizens would never approve of. It cannot be audited, even by Congress. The key to getting this money is political access. If you have Washington's elite in your pocket, your industry gets money.

The pattern has become clear: the government props up an industry with this money, the industry begins to concentrate more on politics than doing business. It then, like a spoiled child, becomes an expensive failure which will not change until there is a crisis. And all this, because with government access comes easy - but not free - money. It is free for the recipients, but not free for we the tax-payers. We have to work to pay that money – either indirectly through inflation of our currency or directly through income taxes. For the government, the deal brings power; power to pick and choose economic winners and prop up political allies.

Furthermore, corporate welfare has the same effect as normal welfare: spending other peoples money is always easier than spending your own. It distorts incentives and encourages bad behavior. This is why so many American institutions are failing, including health-care, education and the Detroit auto industry.

Besides the obvious legal problems, the enormous moral problem with this is fairness. Sure, we love to hear politicians talk about how much they care and how they cant stand by and let millions of people (allegedly) lose their jobs. But the question is, if one business is propped up, why not another? When one business is propped up, it is inevitably at the expense of another. The U.S. system was based on the idea that the costs of picking favorites are greater than the costs of certain businesses going under.

The upside, is that centralization of banking and finance gave the government more power to give people access to money, because it could systematically eliminate much of the risk that would prevent private banks from loaning on their own. This was good in the short term, because it was used to help people get loans who normally would be too risky to get them. However, the centralization brought inevitable long-term problems - by their very nature, the loans were bad investments for the banks. Plus, the fewer banks you have, the bigger deal it is when they go under. This, in turn, seems to justify more government intervention (i.e. government bailouts). Of course, the government needs to tax, borrow and inflate to pay for all this.

It is income redistribution, but not Robin Hood’s style. It is taking from the middle-class and giving to the politically well-connected, also known as "corporate welfare." From this has come all the other problems. Now every lobbyist under the sun wants a piece of the pie. The government is secretly picking and choosing who gets money, based on who has political access. Amazingly, the powers in Washington believe they have a right to do this by virtue of being the powers in Washington. Right now, President Bush is racking up 8 billion dollars worth of personal favors.

The American people are being systematically lied to and robbed – and being told it is for their own good. Sec. Paulson has already admitted he has no plans to use the bailout money as he said he would.

This is Obama’s true mission: to end this. This is not about ideology. Any honest person can agree, this activity is morally and intellectually wrong on every level and by any definition. During the campaign, Obama was anything but clear on what he thinks the problem is. In fact, he supported the bailout and currently indicates he is in favor of giving money to one of his personal political interest groups, the Detroit auto industry. So it is difficult to be optimistic. However, the excesses of the Bush administration have become clear. Although he hijacked the rhetoric of a free-marketer, Mr. Bush is not ideological in any way. He is a purely political creature who actually believes in this corrupt system. In fact, Bill Clinton has more belief in free markets than President Bush. Lets pray that Obama has some integrity on this, the most important issue of our time.

Obama must take a stand on corruption and corporate welfare. He must end the picking of political favorites, including the ones he and his party like (i.e. unions, corporate farmers, the Detroit automobile industry and other liberal interest groups). He will make many people angry if he does this, just like President Andrew Jackson did. However, this is why our system removes the President from political influence, as opposed to, say, a parliamentary system in which a Prime Minister can always be removed from office. The President needs to be able to make the tough decisions without losing his job. President Bush thought the Presidency was somewhat removed from political oversight so that he could do politically reprehensible things without being questioned. He was wrong.

Traditionally, this is what Presidents do early in their terms, so that they positive effects are felt before the next election. In fact, one of Obama's closest advisers is Paul Volker, who has been down this road before with Reagan in the early 80's.

This is what President Obama should prioritize.

Republicans Must Get Back to their Roots (Must Read)

2008-10-05T13:17:00.000-07:00

Republicans Must Get Back to their Roots. (must read article)

The "Humpty Dumpty" Bailout Plan

2008-09-29T16:51:00.000-07:00

I was not surprised when Secretary Paulson said he had no plans to use the bailout money for the very things he said he would. In fact, he said there would be a disaster if he did not get money to buy bad loans, now he refuses to buy them. It is also not surprising that he insisted that there be no accountability in the bill. There are trillions of dollars of money being secretively spent with no accountability. This is, as Newt Gingrich recently said, "simply un-American."

Humpty Dumpty's origin is in English history. He is a character used throughout history to describe greedy Kings who squander other people's resources so that they can behave irresponsibly, till they fall off the wall, and no resources can "put them back together again." It is fitting that this analogy be used to describe today's "Kings."

Originally, the House rejected the so-called bank “bail-out” bill, until 150 billions dollars of pork was put into it. This bailout was a tremendous spit in the face to this country. The corruption is no longer secretive; it is flagrant. I refer readers to my "Article of the Day" section which lists a number of articles which tell the story of the bailout corruption.

Why should one type of business get bailed out, when others do not? Why should we allow the government officials to pick favorites like this? If I wreck my truck, the government does not pay my loans - that is a risk that the banks took on me based on my credit worthiness, and if I fail, then that risk did not pay off. However, if I were a bank investing in mortgages it would not matter - I could just walk away and the bank would get tax dollars to pay off the loan.

These banks failed under a set of actions, which were done to prevent the very failures which occurred. They told us we needed a central bank, government backed loans, housing bills and other goodies to prevent recessions. Now they want to increase these actions to deal with the effects which did not prevent the failures to start with.

The stock market is supposed to be risky - that is what keeps it in check. Investors investigate the risk, and do not invest in un-sound companies. However, the government wants to reduce that risk, and replace it with government regulators. They do not realize that the regulators give a false sense of reduced risk by saying "do not worry about it, we are making sure these companies are sound." It is no surprise then, that the investors turn to the regulators to compensate them when the investment turns out to be as risky as it was before the government stepped in. Why should we taxpayers compenstate them, because they depended on the government to do thier job for them and failed?

There are plenty of other reasons to despise this bill. First, even the bill’s supporters said they didn’t know if it would work. Secondly, it included numerous provisions which were blatantly unconstitutional. Third, there are so many conflicts of interest on this thing, that it is (as Congressman Paul Ryan described it) "a stinking cow-pie with a marshmallow in the middle."

It was intended to bailout individuals who did a poor job managing their companies. Not that this was unexpected. They colluded with government officials to centralize the banking system, which ran the competition (small banks) out of business and gave tremendous oligopoly power to a few big bankers, while distorting their business incentives. They turned to the government for profit, rather than their customers. Now they turn to the government to bail them out with our money. This has happened many times in history and is not unexpected. All Bernake's economic models, and Paulson's plans cannot put this Humpty Dumpty back together again.

As Newt Gingrich said – the bill is simply un-American. He should have went a step further to say that this is an extension of a banking system, that is highly un-American. Most people would never tolerate this system if they knew about it. Henry Ford said, and it is still true: “It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

For years, I have cringed as I heard commentators talk about how good the economy was. I knew, as do most Austrian Economics adherents, that the economy was being propped up by government intervention. No economy can survive in the long term on a foundation of politically driven government subsidies, centrally managed inflation and banking, and high taxes. These things stimulate the economy in the short-term, but cannot be sustained without imposing a higher and higher burden on development over time. It is called "Keynesian Economics," and it only works in the short run, never in the long run.

As Adam Smith taught us, an economy must provide freedom for individuals and basic oversight in order to grow. Government cannot grow an economy in the long run, because it’s incentive structure is not built to do such. Interest rates will always be either too low or too high. Also, government revenue is derived from force and coercion – not in exchange for providing a service or product. The U.S. government has figured this out, and has used these economic principles to grow the economy. The growth was so strong, that the government could tax the economy heavily, and still get away with it. However, the government has gotten greedy – as to all human beings when they are given instant gratification. Government officials enjoyed the benefits of trading favors with the banking industry, and they wanted more, till they got to the point where they wanted to out-right purchase the banks.

These bankers, government officials and investors (by the way, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernake are chief among them) are spoiled brats. As such, they do as all spoiled brats do – they turn to their masters for more money, more support and more of the spoliation which destroyed them. It is hard to say “no” and to make the child sleep on the street till he gets his own job – but the pocket-book must be cut off at some point. The child must learn through either a long-term proper upbringing, or a sudden crisis as an adult. We already let this brat grow up without proper upbringing – so there is only one other option. This Humpty Dumpty thought he could dance on the wall all he wanted to, take all the risk he wanted to, and we would always catch him.

The sad thing is that many innocent people must be deprived of what they thought were sound investments. All brats bring others down with them. However, we are spoiled too, and must be taught the same lesson. Maybe we will know better, and teach our children not to trust the government to take care of us from cradle to grave. Maybe we will teach them that there is only one type of responsibility, and that is personal responsibility. Taking care of others is very important in life, but that cannot be allowed to become spoiling.

The baby-boomer generation is about to learn this over the next couple decades. The banking system is the beginning of a domino of failures expected in medicare, social security and all the other welfare programs. If we had a free market, these things may not be automatic – it is hard to bring a child up the proper way. However, these programs would be cheaper and more accessible, just like any market-driven consumer product.

However, I see the point in individual welfare – at least there is a good intention there. I don’t oppose individual welfare nearly as much as I oppose corporate welfare. Nothing is more repugnant in a free society than to deprive people of their personal resources to line the pockets of the politically well-connected. That is the real problem here.

Throughout the development of any economy, there comes a time for contraction. Excess in an economy is checked by recession. The fear of falling victim to a recession is what keeps investors in check – regulation from government officials simply cannot have this effect. Real recessions are not a bad thing – they create a buyer’s market and they clean the economy of bad investments. They are usually short and painless. However, the government has prevented recession through inflation for so long, that they exacerbated the effects. Artificial government-caused recessions like this one are a bad thing because they drive the government to behave even more irresponsibly. Their answer to put Humpty Dumpty back together again is to get more nets to catch him when he falls. However, if he were allowed to fall, there would be pain, but he might stop dancing on walls. This is what worked in the early Reagan Administration, and what will work today.

The answer is to let these banks fail and attack the long term problem – centralized banking. There would be a short term recession, but in the long term, the banks, investors and customers will all learn to take responsibility for themselves.

2008-09-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/why-you-should-hate-treasury-bailout.html

Make Mine Freedom

2008-07-12T18:12:00.000-07:00

Judge Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit) Quotes

2008-06-28T07:52:00.001-07:00

Janice Rogers Brown is a judge on the D.C. Circuit of Appeals. She is one of the most eloquent spokesperson's for the Constitution. Below is a copy of quotes posted by "The People for the American Way." Ironically, they posted these wonderful quotes to show how horrible they think she is. If only there were more judges with this kind of integrity.

Enjoy!

Janice Rogers Brown On American Government
Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. [“A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Speech to Federalist Society (April 20. 2000)(“Federalist speech” at 8]Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized....When did government cease to be a necessary evil and become a goody bag to solve our private problems? [“Hyphenasia: the Mercy Killing of the American Dream,” Speech at Claremont-McKenna College (Sept. 16, 1999) at 3,4]In the last 100 years – and particularly in the last 30 – ...[g]overnment has been transformed from a necessary evil to a nanny – benign, compassionate, and wise. Sometimes transformation is a good thing. Sometimes, though, it heralds not higher ground but rather, to put a different gloss on Pat Moynihan’s memorable phrase, defining democracy down. [“Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech to Institute of Justice (Aug. 12, 2000)(“IFJ speech”) at 2][W]e no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 3-4]Government acts as a giant siphon, extracting wealth, creating privilege and power, and redistributing it. [Speech at McGeorge School of Law (Nov. 21, 1997) at 18][See also Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, 953 P.2d 1188, 1212 (Cal. 1998)(Brown, J., dissenting)(referring to government as “relentless siphon.”)]

Janice Rogers Brown on senior citizens and age discrimination
My grandparents’ generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family’s honor. Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much “free” stuff as the political system will permit them to extract...Big government is...[t]he drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms, for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers, and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 2,3]I would deny [the senior citizen] plaintiff relief because she has failed to establish the public policy against age discrimination “inures to the benefit of the public” or is “fundamental and substantial”...Discrimination based on age...does not mark its victim with a “stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship”....; it is the unavoidable consequence of that universal leveler: time [Dissenting opinion in Stevenson v. Superior Court, 941 P.2d 1157,1177, 1187 (Cal. 1997)]

Janice Rogers Brown on the New Deal, the Great Society, and the “transmutation” of the Constitution
I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document...1937...marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests... In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned [Federalist speech at 8, 10, 11, 12]In the last 100 years – and particularly the last 30 – the Constitution, once the fixed chart of our aspirations, has been demoted to the status of a bad chain novel. [IFJ speech at2]

Janice Rogers Brown on the proper “protection” of property
In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned...Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937…Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status...It thus became government’s job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism. [Federalist speech at 12, 13]At its founding and throughout its early history, this regime revered private property. The American philosophy of the Rights of Man relied heavily on the indissoluble connection between rationality, property, freedom and justice. The Founders viewed the right of property as “the guardian of every other right”….[IFJ speech at 5][P]rivate property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco…I would find the HCO [San Francisco Residential Hotel Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance] preempted by the Ellis Act and facially unconstitutional. …Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government. …The right to express one’s individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion. [Dissenting opinion in San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 41 P.3d 87, 120, 128-9 (Cal. 2002)(upholding San Francisco ordinance calling on hotel owners seeking permission to eliminate residential units and convert to tourist hotels help replace lost rental units for low income, elderly, and disabled persons)][See also IFJ speech at 4 (warning that without effective limits on government, “a democracy is inevitably transformed into a Kleptocracy.”)]

Janice Rogers Brown on the courts, law and the judiciary
We are heirs to a mind-numbing bureaucracy; subject to a level of legalization that cannot avoid being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory. What other outcome is possible in a society in which no adult can wake up, go about their business, and return to their homes without breaking several laws? There are of course many reasons for our present difficulties, but some of our troubles can be laid at the feet of that most innocuous branch – the judiciary…From the 1960’s onward, we have witnessed the rise of the judge militant. [Speech to California Lincoln Club Libertarian Law Council (Dec. 11, 1997)(“Libertarian speech”) at 5-6, 9]But, alas, the decisions of such [supreme] courts, including my own, seem ever more ad hoc and expedient, perilously adrift on the roiling seas of feckless photo-op compassion and political correctness. [IFJ speech at 15]Thus, lawyers have secured the right of topless dancers to perform, but have banished prayer from public life. They have won the right for indigents to take over public spaces, even our children’s libraries, and for the mentally ill to live on streets and shout obscenities at passersby. Legal advocates have guaranteed the right of students to be ignorant by opposing competency tests, and ignored their brazen possession and use of weapons in school. [“Politics: A Vision for Change,” Docket (Dec. 1993) at 15]Politicians in their eagerness to please and to provide something of value to their constituencies that does not have a price tag are handing out new rights like lollipops in the dentist’s office. [Speech to Sacramento County bar Ass’n (May 1, 1996) at 6-7]

Janice Rogers Brown on strict judicial scrutiny for violations of fundamental constitutional rights and the incorporation doctrine
[Beginning in 1937, t]he court drew a line between personal rights and property rights or economic interests, and applied two different constitutional tests…[I]f the right was personal and “fundamental,” review was intolerably strict. [Federalist speech at 12]The dichotomy between the United States Supreme Court’s laissez-faire treatment of social and economic rights and its hypervigilance with respect to an expanding array of judicially proclaimed fundamental rights is highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid. [Concurring opinion in Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d 581, 601 (Cal. 2000), cert. denied, 69 U.S.L.W. 3549 (2001)] [T]he courts overcame these alleged limitations on their powers with ridiculous ease. How? By constitutionalizing everything possible, finding constitutional rights which are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. By taking a few words which are in the Constitution like “due process” and “equal protection” and imbuing them with elaborate and highly implausible etymologies; and by enunciating standards of constitutional review which are not standards at all but rather policy vetoes, i.e., strict scrutiny and the compelling state interest standard. [Libertarian speech at 7-8]The United States Supreme Court, however, began in the 1940s to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment…The historical evidence supporting what the Supreme Court did here is pretty sketchy…The argument on the other side is pretty overwhelming that it’s probably not incorporated. [“Beyond the Abyss: Restoring Religion on the Public Square,” Speech to Pepperdine Bible Lectureship in 1999]

Janice Rogers Brown on democracy, capitalism, socialism, and “liberalism”:
Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism’s virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance, but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice – including our freedom….1937…marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution. [Federalist speech at 6-7, 10]In truth, liberalism’s vaunted tolerance and openness is a lie. In America, at least, liberalism is tolerant only of those concerns to which it is indifferent. To those trivialized forms of religious observance which amount to no more than a consumer preference, the culture maintains a posture of tolerance. [Speech to St. Thomas More Society (Oct. 15, 1998) at 8]

Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court’s discredited decision in Lochner v. New York
In his famous, all too famous, dissent in Lochner, Justice Holmes wrote that the “constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire.” Yes, one of the greatest (certainly one of the most quotable) jurists this nation has ever produced; but in this case, he was simply wrong. [Federalist speech at 8]

Janice Rogers Brown on the right of privacy vs. the “right to keep and bear arms”
Curiously, in the current dialectic, the right to keep and bear arms – a right expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights – is deemed less fundamental than implicit protections the court purports to find in the penumbras of other express provisions. (citations omitted) But surely, the right to preserve one’s life is at least as fundamental as the right to preserve one’s privacy. [Concurring opinion in Kasler, 2 P.3d at 602]

Janice Rogers Brown on government employers requiring employees to forfeit constitutional rights
In this case and others like it involving the interests of government solely as an employer and the surrender of a constitutional right as a condition of obtaining a mere benefit or “privilege” [i.e. employment], I would argue for a return to an earlier view, pungently expressed by Justice Holmes while a member of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: “The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” (citations omitted) I realize, of course, that for many years Holmes’s view has been out of fashion. …However, to the extent the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions purports to hold that government may not grant a benefit on the condition that the beneficiary surrender a constitutional right, even if the government may withhold the benefit altogether, it seems more a figment of academic imagination than reality. [Concurring and dissenting opinion in Loder v. City of Glendale, 927 P.2d 1200, 1257, 1258 (1997)(striking down city across-the-board testing program for promoted employees while approving requirement for new employees)].

Janice Rogers Brown on natural law
We continue to chip away at the foundations of our success. We dismissed natural law and morality because its unverifiable judgments were deemed inferior to reason. But, then, we drove reason itself from the camp because the most significant of life’s questions defy empiricism. …Only natural law offers an alternative to might makes right and accounts for man’s “unrelenting quest to rise above the ‘letter of the law’ to the realm of the spirit.” [IFJ speech at 15, 17]

Adam Smith Quotes

2008-06-27T22:12:00.000-07:00

Adam Smith is known as one of the greatest philosophers in history. Until the 1930’s, the economy of the United States was almost entirely based on his book, “The Wealth of Nations,” which by no coincidence, was published months before the U.S. Declared independence in 1776. Today his insights have seen much abuse, as political leaders have cherry picked the parts they liked and ignored certain essentials. Even the principles that China has employed since 1977 in order to grow, can be traced back to Smith's insights. Many of the problems we face can be traced to where these politicians have departed from his advise, and as history as always shown, the “invisible hand” will always correct the politician’s deviations.

Smith teaches us that, rather than have an economy where exchanges are controlled by a centralized, (supposedly) benevolent authority, the government should allow us to make our own economic choices. This is because all people inevitably act in their own “self-interest” (exchanging personal gain with others, for agreed upon mutual benefit). This principle which will naturally lead to an outcome agreed upon by the people within the exchange itself, regardless of whether people outside of that exchange think it is somehow "unfair." This is preferable (to advocates of a free society) to an outcome with the arbitrary consequences of blanket mandates enforced by politically motivated bureaucrats. This insight stands in stark contrast to Marxism, which tells us that there is constant struggle between classes because of unfairness, a central government should actively correct this unfairness, and that people should subordinate their own interest to the larger society, which will be guided by people of the better working class, toward a utopia of equality.

We should not be confused by false dichotomies of “conservative vs. liberal” or “Republican vs. Democrat.” The inconsistencies in their politics reveals the hypocrisy that Smith himself warned us of. As Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan and others have said, each generation must fight to restore it’s own freedom, it is not something that you are born with.

These are some of my favorite quotes by Smith.

Enjoy!

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."

"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an author-ity which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a many who had folly and presump-tion enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

"According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to ... first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain..."

"[The man of system] seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single pieces has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislator might choose to impress upon it."

"To judge whether a workman is fit to be employed, may surely be trusted to the discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ and improper person, is evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive."

"Public services are never better performed than when their reward comes in consequence of their being performed, and is proportioned to the diligence employed in performing them."

"It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage."

Court Rules on Second Amendment

2008-06-26T08:06:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court ruled today that the second amendment is a individual right to effectively possess a firearm for hunting and self defense. This is a landmark ruling because it is the first time the court has ruled on the second amendment in American history.

Despite the deep divisions in the court over the issues, they continue to accept high profile cases. Justice Kennedy has, for the second term, established himself as the most important lawyer in America. He is the swing vote on practically every major decision. We are glad to say he voted correctly this time, the only concern is to why he does not vote more consistently.

The only bad part to this story is the fact that this was not a 9-0 decision. The Constitution has come under attack consistently in America throughout the 20th century by various interest groups. The Supreme Court, by it’s own charge, is supposed to be an interest organization for the Constitution solely. It is astounding how the four liberal members work to protect 1/2 the Constitution, the conservative members work to protect the other 1/2 and Kennedy seemingly flips a coin.

The court’s current liberal/conservative battle lines were drawn by political interest groups, not philosophic consistencies. The court should be above such influence.

McCain's Insulting Gimmick

2008-06-23T11:00:00.001-07:00

John McCain has recently said the government should offer a 3 hundred million dollar prize to someone who can invent a battery that far surpasses existing technology.

This is what people in politics call a "gimmick." It is ridiculous and counterproductive. Ridiculous because there is already a prize - the inventor of such technology will be greatly rewarded by the market itself and hardly needs Mr. McCain to award more of money that is not his.

This type of gimmick can be counterproductive because it can distort incentives. For example, if the best technological development is not a battery at all, a researcher might still be inclined to work on a battery to get the prize.

Furthermore, this type of idea opens the floodgates for such gimmicks. When government engages in this kind of activity, it will inevitably become political. In other words, congress and the President will start working on ways to issue these prizes to their favored individuals and firms. The U.S. government already spends money that is not theirs with extravagance, and this proposal shows that Mr. McCain thinks he knows how to reward business’s with other people’s money better than they do.

John McCain needs to read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, published in 1776. This book is the foundation of most economic theory and the U.S. economic system generally. In it, Smith describes notions of human nature in general which help explain economic activity. Smith speaks of the "invisible hand" of the economy, which sets prices, supplies and demand at levels which are determined to be appropriate by the market itself, rather than self-interested politicians.

Mr. McCain needs to put together a fundamentally sound economic policy. He has admitted openly the economy is not his strong suit, but this should not impede his road to the White House. A sound, comprehensive approach with recognition of the fundmentals of economics will more than suffice.

Between inflation, the rise in mortgage foreclosures, distorted food prices, big bank bailouts, and other government created atrocities, the U.S. has managed to screw up the economy pretty badly, and proposing a gimmick like this is nothing short of insulting.

Guantanamo Bay Habeas Corpus Case: My Take on the Opinion

2008-06-15T10:05:00.000-07:00

This is my commentary on the Guantanamo Bay Case. The issue was one of the Constitutional doctrine of "habeas corpus," i.e. whether the Military Commission Act of 2006 was adequate for reviewing the detentions of the prisoners. The "conservative" justices voted against the decision, while the "liberal" ones voted for it. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote, who is considered to be more conservative, but not really a committed ideologically. I would remind my conservative friends, that despite the "liberal v. conservative" dicotomy which seems apparent here, both very conservative justices O'Connor and Rehnquist voted consistent with this opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I agree with their take on the issue generally.

- Here is a press release on the decision.
- Here is the opinion itself.
- Here is some amazing journalism on the details of the Guantanamo Bay Prison

Thank you for reading, and ENJOY!
-josh

Confirming that I have no life, I have read the large bulk of the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The dissents were written by Justice John Roberts and Antonin Scalia. I also listened to the oral arguments a few months ago when the were made.

I have no sympathy for confirmed criminals - those who were found guilty by a fair and neutral tribunal. In fact, I believe strongly in hard labor and the death penalty as punishment. Furthermore, as a conservative and a veteran of Iraqi Freedom, this case was of importance to me, as these prisoners allegedly tried to kill soldiers like myself and my friends. However, what soldiers fight for is American principles, and habeas corpus is one of the most important ones. It’s one of those things which makes us better than the terrorists.

In this opinion, Kennedy writes a deep, nuanced opinion, while Scalia’s is somewhat shallow – from a perspective of ego, not content. I want to be careful as to say that this brings no discredit to those who agree with Scalia – only to the actual tone and rhetoric of his opinion. Scalia departs from the meat of his argument throughout, which distracts from his argument. This is a classic problem with Scalia’s jurisprudence. Conversely, it is apparent from it’s tone that it is not vanity that drove Kennedy to write his opinion.

Justice Scalia’s dissent is inciteful and instructive, but vastly overstated. Both sides agree that there is no exact precedent on this specific issue. There are, however, many cases which come close. But nothing addresses so-called “enemy combatants,” or anything analogous. This means, as Kennedy wrote, that this is a purely “political question.” The Supreme Court does have authority to answer political questions, but generally this is left to the legislature and Executive. The Court can only overrule the other two branches if it acts outside the bounds of the Constitution. The Constitution does not address this issue directly either, and so the court’s job is to apply it’s principles and intent.

However, from his opinion, I gather that Scalia may not be willing to admit this is a “political question” with no solid precedent. He states his argument, literally, as if it were irrefutable. It certainly is refutable, and that’s why five justices disagreed with him. Scalia’s unequivocal language and virtual total faith in the Executive branch is scary. The Supreme Court is the vanguard of the Constitution, and the legal principles which surround it – a vanguard against the Executive and Legislative branches. There are plenty of other cases where he expresses this, but chooses to depart from that view here.

Scalia’s tone is inflexible and unbending. It uses political rhetoric, which is usually reserved for getting votes, almost as to justify his own statements that the judiciary is ill-equipped to handle terrorism cases. He insults those who disagree with him and accuses them as being complicit to murder. He neglects the fact that tyranny has caused far more death and destruction on this planet than enemy combatants ever could. His verbal finger-wagging distracts from the legitimate argument which can be found within the clutter – the argument that the President must be given the tools to do his job on fighting international terrorism. The Court must be reluctant, but not unwilling to interfere.

Scalia actually says at one point “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” This is only one of Scalia’s many over-the-top ramblings, which borders in my opinion on pure McCarthyism. This kind of rhetoric is unbecoming a civilized debater, no less Supreme Court Justice.

Kennedy’s argument is essentially that, if one studies the history of habeas corpus, one could not justify the detentions at Guantanamo Bay (see pg 17 of the opinion). He also argues that the history of the idea of divided power mandates that the Executive branch cannot both imprison people and put them on trial itself (only the judicial branch can put people on trial, however temporary exceptions are tolerated for practical purposes regarding battlefield prisoners). Scalia’s refrain is that there is no example of this ever being done. He also says that the courts have denied such access explicitly in the past – referring mainly to the Eisentrager case, which held that Nazi war criminals imprisoned by the US could not challenge their detention in US courts. This is a good illustration of Scalia’s disingenuousness in this debate, because he knows that this case is easy to distinguish, as Kennedy does just that in his opinion. Scalia’s opinion is respectable, but not irrefutable.

Kennedy is much more honest in his opinion than Scalia – a feature which Justice Scalia shamelessly takes advantage of, as he constantly points out that Kennedy says that his opinion cannot be based entirely on law. However, Kennedy also said that the opposite view could not be justified by law either – a point that Scalia’s ego will not adequately confront. Kennedy’s acknowledgement of his argument’s weaknesses add strength to the opinion because they create a real starting point for dealing with this issues in the future. This is were Robert’s dissent is important; Robert's dissent is based on the fact that Kennedy neither identifies what the prisoner’s rights are, nor how the existing law fails to meet that standard. However, Kennedy’s stated purpose was not to make law in this regard – which is what would be required of such a ruling – but rather to simply preserve the legally mandated principles of habeas corpus and divided governmental power, more in character of the policy-oriented court the Supreme Court is.

If Scalia’s opinion were law (that the court cannot even consider the issue) it would lead to a grossly over-simplified, arbitrary outcome – a dodge of the issue rather than a starting point. This is because the court could never consider what habeas means in regards to America's activities outside it's borders, or check the President's activities in this regard - even after six years of an admittedly indefinite imprisonment. It’s sort of like the Principle who simply punishes every kid on the school-yard for the wrong-doing of the few – sure, it’s simple, it’s fast and you punish the wrong-doers; but you also punish many who were not guilty. Protecting those who are not guilty is worth the effort, and our country’s traditional willingness to put in that effort is one of those things which makes our country great and what separates us from the terrorists. This is not sympathy for terrorists, this is insistence that we not become so ourselves.
Kennedy’s opinion gives you the sense that he wrote this opinion as a matter of necessity. I felt like Kennedy believed the court was cornered because of the length of the imprisonment, and the inadequacy of the Military Commission Act as a remedy. The court started to feel that the President simply would not afford the court any sense that justice was being done. Furthermore, he saw a vast expansion of Presidential power, and seemingly vigorous efforts made to keep the other branches out of the loop. The Constitution was meant to protect against this.

Originalism/Strict Construction
The constant criticism of Scalia – which I agree with – is that, notwithstanding his stature as a Supreme Court Justice, he is simply not a persuasive person. His approach to the debate distracts from his argument to the point that one does not even want to listen to it. This is particularly sad, coming from a Justice who recently wrote a book on how to persuade judges. He is just as smart as any debater out there, he simply is rude. As an true originalist myself, I greatly prefer that another person would become the spokesperson for originalism.

It should be noted that Kennedy is far more originalist in this opinion than Scalia, and it is too bad the Kennedy does not do this every case. Although many may disagree about the original intent of the Constitution, the tools, methods and philosophy that Kennedy deploys are classic originalist methods. Kennedy goes through painstaking effort to create a comprehensive opinion here. He justifies his opinion by discussing the history of habeas corpus itself (starting on pg 17) and all the relevant law. His reliance on the original, founding principles of the Constitution are enough to make an originalist proud.

Kennedy also relies heavily on the structure of the Constitution in regards to divided power – another very conservative, originalist bread and butter Constitutional interpretative tool. Scalia mentions on pg 127 that the majority held the way they did out of pure jealously. I don’t think this is true, but if it is, then bravo to the court....it is supposed to be jealous! The three-branch system is designed by the founding fathers to provoke such jealousy. This is what is supposed to keep each branch at bay, limit the government’s power ect, ect, ect. As the President vastly expands his power, it is only natural, according to the Constitutional structure itself, that the legislature and court will get jealous and expand their power as well.

Scalia does bring some humor in as well. He makes a good point on pg 126, were he says that the majority has such high regard for stare decisis, yet is “blatantly” ignoring stare decisis here. The thing which makes this so funny is that he cites the court’s liberal member’s opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood on the issue of stare decisis – which is the present controlling law on abortion, using stare decisis to uphold the right to an abortion (found originally in Roe v. Wade). Scalia is basically saying that they love stare decisis when abortion is at issue, but not when this issue comes up.

The problem with Scalia's joke is that first, that the majority members do not agree that Scalia's position is the existing law and secondly, if Scalia wants to start citing hypocritical decisions, he will find himself more guilty than many of his colleagues; Scalia joined the majority in cases which, by no stretch of the imagination could possibly be considered interpretations of the intent of the authors of the Constitution, or any subsequent amenders of the Constitution. Two extremely un-originalist votes were in Kelo v. New London, and Gonzalez v. Raich. The fact is that the Supreme Court has more than one hypocrite sitting currently, and they include both conservative and liberal justices.

Conclusion
Bill O’Reilly agrees very much with Scalia, but made a good point on his show the night of the opinion. He said the problem was that the Bush administration just held those prisoners too long. I agree. As with many the recognized natural human rights such as habeas corpus, we simply cannot say what the threshold is. Our creator simply did not tell us how long we can hold prisoners in good conscience. However, it is very difficult to say that six years is not too long. This is what is really going on in this case.

Bill O’Reilly is right, it is the fact that the majority could not stand idly by while this imprisonment went on indefinitely that brought this case about. The justices simply cannot help but ask themselves, “why is the President holding them this long?” The assertion that the answer is “ a national security secret” can only hold water for so long. The President said himself that he wanted to close the prison as have many hawkish conservatives. They realize this situation makes the U.S. look hypocritical – after having championed certain values and put many murderers on trial, including Saddam Hussein, Ku Klux Klan terrorists, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Taylor, the Nazi War Criminals and many others.

Unlike every other case in Anglo history, the Guantanamo prisoners had absolutely no other way to challenge their detentions. They would be tried by either U.S. courts or their own captors. Granted, as Scalia says, many of them are dangerous, and have allegedly actually returned to the battlefield upon their release. Here, Scalia shows contempt for his own profession, his own branch of government, and the Constitution he is sworn to protect by saying that the courts are incapable of holding adequate trials. If this is true, then we should shut down the judiciary once and for all. We will not do that, because it is also true that many of the other prisoners have been shown to be innocent bystanders, and if Scalia has such a lack of faith in the court system, he should leave it and advocate another system.

The heart of Kennedy’s argument is that even in times of crisis, some things are sacred – habeas corpus is one of them. The sacred things are what we veterans fought for. I think we all would agree if we were imprisoned – even if you were only one of four hundred prisoners, and the only one who is innocent, you would simply want a chance to state your case somewhere, to a neutral party. Again, the efforts we go through to be sure we provide this is what separates us from them.