Here is a graph depicting the IPCC (Keith Briffa & Mann) "Hockey Stick" that shows dramatic warming in the 20th century:
Here is Steve McIntyre's graph overlaid on top of Briffa's "Hockey Stick":
Monday, December 28, 2009
Broken Hockey Sticks and Other Climate Change Deceptions
Read Biship Hills Blog "The Yamal implosion" for the best explanation I've read to date about the infamouse "hockey stick" graph that shows a supposed unprecedented warming in the 20th century. But…When Steve McInty revised the dataset with a greater number of core samples from Fritz Schweingruber's collection, which Keith Briffa left out of his analysis, the results were mind boggling. The sharp up spike that appears in Briffa’s graph at the end of the twentieth century had vanished.
Here is a graph depicting the IPCC (Keith Briffa & Mann) "Hockey Stick" that shows dramatic warming in the 20th century:
Here is Steve McIntyre's graph overlaid on top of Briffa's "Hockey Stick":
Here is a graph depicting the IPCC (Keith Briffa & Mann) "Hockey Stick" that shows dramatic warming in the 20th century:
Here is Steve McIntyre's graph overlaid on top of Briffa's "Hockey Stick":
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Immorality of Socialized Health Care
We have all heard the arguments against government “anointed” health care: The high unsustainable costs, the monopolies it will create, the special interest it will create, the lucrative contracts to favored constituencies it will create, the forfeiture of choice, the rationing, which ultimately leads to a total government takeover.
All are valid arguments; however, let’s not forget the most fundamental argument of all, which is: Health care is NOT a right.
A right is a moral sanction of mans actions. It says one’s actions are proper and good. Therefore to violate a man’s right is immoral and evil. The fundamental right, of which all others are corollaries, is the right to life. What this means in practical terms, is the right to live for one’s self not for the sake of others. The primary implementation of mans rights is to pursue a standard of living of one’s own choosing free from force or coercion. The only moral purpose of government, then, is to protect these rights. If government extends it powers beyond protecting these rights into the aggressive role of confiscating people’s wealth for the greater good of society, government becomes a tyrant plundering the people.
Any artificial right, such as the right to health care, destroys the real rights of people by forcing them to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it. This is aggressive force to take one’s income and give it to another.
It is neither moral nor well intended to lay claim to the rewards of someone else’s productivity. It is vicious and predacious to demand a good or service without compensation, or to force someone else to pay for it. A right by its very nature makes no claim on someone else’s property or income, a right as our founders conceived it, only applies to the freedom of action not the compulsion of others. In other words these new rights, such as in the case of universal health care, which require the coercion of others cannot be a right. Such new rights are in fact immoral and evil.
What government health care—or any other form of government created publicly funded program that redistributes wealth or subsidizes one group at the expense of another—does, is it turns the productive in society into serfs of the state.
All are valid arguments; however, let’s not forget the most fundamental argument of all, which is: Health care is NOT a right.
A right is a moral sanction of mans actions. It says one’s actions are proper and good. Therefore to violate a man’s right is immoral and evil. The fundamental right, of which all others are corollaries, is the right to life. What this means in practical terms, is the right to live for one’s self not for the sake of others. The primary implementation of mans rights is to pursue a standard of living of one’s own choosing free from force or coercion. The only moral purpose of government, then, is to protect these rights. If government extends it powers beyond protecting these rights into the aggressive role of confiscating people’s wealth for the greater good of society, government becomes a tyrant plundering the people.
Any artificial right, such as the right to health care, destroys the real rights of people by forcing them to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it. This is aggressive force to take one’s income and give it to another.
It is neither moral nor well intended to lay claim to the rewards of someone else’s productivity. It is vicious and predacious to demand a good or service without compensation, or to force someone else to pay for it. A right by its very nature makes no claim on someone else’s property or income, a right as our founders conceived it, only applies to the freedom of action not the compulsion of others. In other words these new rights, such as in the case of universal health care, which require the coercion of others cannot be a right. Such new rights are in fact immoral and evil.
What government health care—or any other form of government created publicly funded program that redistributes wealth or subsidizes one group at the expense of another—does, is it turns the productive in society into serfs of the state.
The CNN Propaganda Machine Spinning Obamacare
On Sunday I was working out at the gym and watching CNN. The pundit being interviewed—no idea who she was—made a very confusing comment. After reviewing the healthcare legislation that is now before the House of Representatives she commented there is nothing in there that would create a single payer source for health care coverage.
I have to call her out on that statement. According to Investors Business Daily, who sought clarification on the bill from the House Ways and Means Committee, reports the bill provides prohibitions against insures signing up new accounts after the bill goes into effect.
In the bill listed under "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage," in the "Limitation on Enrollment" section on Page 16:
The House Ways and Means Committee told Investors Business Daily that in fact the bill prohibits those who currently have private health care from changing it. And those who leave their employer to work for themselves won’t be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a democrat from Illinois, was speaking to a group of socialized health care supporters when she admitted that one goal of Obama’s socialized health care plan would be to kill private insurance companies in the process of “reform.”
Barak Obama himself reported he wanted to instill a single payer source universal health care system.
However 80% of Americans are happy with their current health plans and as more details are released the Democrat health care plan is rapidly loosing public support so the news media like CNN, who worship at the alter of Obama, have to step up efforts to spin Obamacare to make it more palatable to the masses.
I have to call her out on that statement. According to Investors Business Daily, who sought clarification on the bill from the House Ways and Means Committee, reports the bill provides prohibitions against insures signing up new accounts after the bill goes into effect.
In the bill listed under "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage," in the "Limitation on Enrollment" section on Page 16:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.”
The House Ways and Means Committee told Investors Business Daily that in fact the bill prohibits those who currently have private health care from changing it. And those who leave their employer to work for themselves won’t be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a democrat from Illinois, was speaking to a group of socialized health care supporters when she admitted that one goal of Obama’s socialized health care plan would be to kill private insurance companies in the process of “reform.”
Barak Obama himself reported he wanted to instill a single payer source universal health care system.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
However 80% of Americans are happy with their current health plans and as more details are released the Democrat health care plan is rapidly loosing public support so the news media like CNN, who worship at the alter of Obama, have to step up efforts to spin Obamacare to make it more palatable to the masses.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Can We Really Afford Universal Health Care?
The predominate argument made by the President and congressional liberals for pushing their health care agenda is that it will save the government money in the long run by containing costs. In his usual histrionic fashion Mr. Obama argues his health care plan is vital to controlling future costs and deficits.
"If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit," Obama said. "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we don't act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now."
In yet another foolishly candid moment, Vice President Joe Bidden, in a tryst with the AARP told attendees at a town hall meeting that without the Democrat health care plan the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.
The Democrats want to spend their way into a healthy economy, which throughout history has never worked. The only way to pay for it is to tax an already overtaxed people or borrow the money further increasing the deficit.
Can government spending really save the economy? It has never worked; every time it has been tried it was a dismal failure. It was tried during the great Depression and it failed, Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, wrote in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot.” The result of Jimmy Carter’s price fixing and tax and spend polices to combat the 1970’s recession was stagflation. Maybe the Democrats in Washington think it will work this time—what is the definition of insanity again: Repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome? I digress.
According to Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, the house plan shows no fundamental changes hat would reduce the costs of federal health care spending by any significant amount. Instead, the legislation significantly increases the costs the federal government will be responsible to pay.
The CBO estimates the cost will run $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Furthermore the CBO reports 23 million Americans currently insured will loose their private health care plans.
An editorial in The Washington Times suggests it could be even more expensive costing upwards of $4.5 trillion. The article points out mistakes the CBO made in their calculations, grossly—though not intentionally—underestimating the costs. According to the article the CBO didn’t consider small businesses that employ 10 or less workers. Such businesses account for over 12 million employs and pays out 18.5 billion in health insurance per year. This adds up to $185 billion over ten years that the CBO didn’t take into account in their analysis.
The Washington Post article also quotes estimates made by the Lewin Group a health care policy consulting firm, that estimates that 119 million Americans will switch from their private health care plans to the government plan and if this happens the cost could easily swell to $4.5 trillion over the same 10 year period.
No matter how it all plays out the real burden to Americans will be astronomical; trillions of dollars will be added to the deficit over the next 10 years, millions will loose their private insurance plans, at least 16 million Americans will still be without coverage, and competition between insurance companies and consumer choice will be eliminated by government mandates.
Mr. Obama, who wishfully promises: "we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year,” is promoting a fantasy world that in reality will lead to unsustainable deficits, hyper inflation, and a total government takeover of health care.
"If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit," Obama said. "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we don't act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now."
In yet another foolishly candid moment, Vice President Joe Bidden, in a tryst with the AARP told attendees at a town hall meeting that without the Democrat health care plan the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.
The Democrats want to spend their way into a healthy economy, which throughout history has never worked. The only way to pay for it is to tax an already overtaxed people or borrow the money further increasing the deficit.
Can government spending really save the economy? It has never worked; every time it has been tried it was a dismal failure. It was tried during the great Depression and it failed, Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, wrote in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot.” The result of Jimmy Carter’s price fixing and tax and spend polices to combat the 1970’s recession was stagflation. Maybe the Democrats in Washington think it will work this time—what is the definition of insanity again: Repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome? I digress.
According to Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, the house plan shows no fundamental changes hat would reduce the costs of federal health care spending by any significant amount. Instead, the legislation significantly increases the costs the federal government will be responsible to pay.
The CBO estimates the cost will run $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Furthermore the CBO reports 23 million Americans currently insured will loose their private health care plans.
An editorial in The Washington Times suggests it could be even more expensive costing upwards of $4.5 trillion. The article points out mistakes the CBO made in their calculations, grossly—though not intentionally—underestimating the costs. According to the article the CBO didn’t consider small businesses that employ 10 or less workers. Such businesses account for over 12 million employs and pays out 18.5 billion in health insurance per year. This adds up to $185 billion over ten years that the CBO didn’t take into account in their analysis.
The Washington Post article also quotes estimates made by the Lewin Group a health care policy consulting firm, that estimates that 119 million Americans will switch from their private health care plans to the government plan and if this happens the cost could easily swell to $4.5 trillion over the same 10 year period.
No matter how it all plays out the real burden to Americans will be astronomical; trillions of dollars will be added to the deficit over the next 10 years, millions will loose their private insurance plans, at least 16 million Americans will still be without coverage, and competition between insurance companies and consumer choice will be eliminated by government mandates.
Mr. Obama, who wishfully promises: "we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year,” is promoting a fantasy world that in reality will lead to unsustainable deficits, hyper inflation, and a total government takeover of health care.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Happy Independence Day
As I survey the crowds of flag waving 4th of July celebrators marveling at the grandiose displays of fireworks bursting above, I wonder, if they understand what it means to have individual rights.
I ask myself, do they realize the Boston Tea party was a protest against a government created monopoly? And if so, do they make the connection between then and what is happening today with our own government created monopolies; such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, education (K-12), and others?
Do they consider that the battles of Lexington and Concord began over the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Do they make the connection that today we have places in America where gun ownership is virtually prohibited while in others it is strictly limited?
Do these revelers really understand that we are less free and more heavily taxed than our ancestors under British rule?
Is this really a celebration of the American Revolution—the taking up of arms against one’s own tyrannical government…I wonder which side they would have been on—or is it just a celebration of cool flashy lights in the sky?
Happy Independence Day everybody.
I ask myself, do they realize the Boston Tea party was a protest against a government created monopoly? And if so, do they make the connection between then and what is happening today with our own government created monopolies; such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, education (K-12), and others?
Do they consider that the battles of Lexington and Concord began over the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Do they make the connection that today we have places in America where gun ownership is virtually prohibited while in others it is strictly limited?
Do these revelers really understand that we are less free and more heavily taxed than our ancestors under British rule?
Is this really a celebration of the American Revolution—the taking up of arms against one’s own tyrannical government…I wonder which side they would have been on—or is it just a celebration of cool flashy lights in the sky?
Happy Independence Day everybody.
Quote of The Day
Barack Obama has said his favorite President is Abraham Lincoln. But Obama and Lincoln are on the opposite sides of the ploitical spectrum. As Obama heads us down the road to socialism, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say:
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.---Abraham Lincoln
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.---Abraham Lincoln
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Eight Republicans Who Voted For Cap and Trade:
Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765
Make them explain themselves!
Click here for the complete results of the vote.
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765
Make them explain themselves!
Click here for the complete results of the vote.
Cap and Trade: Subversion
As if things couldn’t get any weirder.
As Democrats in the house narrowly pass the thousand page, $2 trillion-dollar plus, cap and trade bill on Friday, EPA documents that refute global warming data are being suppressed.
In a new 2009 study by the EPA on global warming makes the United Nations’ 2007 study, which is being used as the impetus for the Markey-Waxman “Cap and Trade” bill, obsolete. However, this study was suppressed so it wouldn’t interfere with Fridays vote.
Not only does this fly in the face of Obama’s transparency rhetoric it also shows the pragmatism of Obams’s promise when he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
As it turns out the EPA has been keeping the report under wraps and silencing its author because the Obama administration is pressuring them to support carbon dioxide emission regulations.
The report warns that the EPA's adoption of the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” means that it is relying on outdated research and ignoring major new developments on the issue of climate change.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which released the report by analyst and economist/physicist Alan Carlin, explained that those new developments include the continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
Other new data indicates that ocean cycles probably are the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, the institute said. Moreover, reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.
As Democrats in the house narrowly pass the thousand page, $2 trillion-dollar plus, cap and trade bill on Friday, EPA documents that refute global warming data are being suppressed.
In a new 2009 study by the EPA on global warming makes the United Nations’ 2007 study, which is being used as the impetus for the Markey-Waxman “Cap and Trade” bill, obsolete. However, this study was suppressed so it wouldn’t interfere with Fridays vote.
Not only does this fly in the face of Obama’s transparency rhetoric it also shows the pragmatism of Obams’s promise when he declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”
As it turns out the EPA has been keeping the report under wraps and silencing its author because the Obama administration is pressuring them to support carbon dioxide emission regulations.
The report warns that the EPA's adoption of the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” means that it is relying on outdated research and ignoring major new developments on the issue of climate change.
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which released the report by analyst and economist/physicist Alan Carlin, explained that those new developments include the continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
Other new data indicates that ocean cycles probably are the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, the institute said. Moreover, reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The cost of Universal Healthcare
The proposed healthcare reform measure being touted by the Obama White House is a recipe for failure and the result will be a complete government takeover of healthcare. That will mean higher taxes, lower quality of care, larger deficits, and bureaucratic rationing.
Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.
According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.
Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.
So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.
Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.
One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.
Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.
Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.
Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.
If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.
Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.
Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.
Despite a weak economy and facing trillion dollar deficits Barrack Obama is hurrying to restructure the healthcare system at a cost of more than a trillion dollars. The chances of sweeping healthcare reform being enacted are high since a significant number of Americans have come to accept the belief that healthcare for everyone is a civil right. A recent Rasmussen poll shows 42% of Americans believe healthcare is a fundamental right.
According to the White House, the start up cost for this program is estimated to be a whopping $634 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the cost will be $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Further more the CBO reports 23 million Americans will loose their private healthcare plans.
Coming up with the money to pay for this entitlement program is proving to be problematic. As it stands the spending cuts praised by the Obama administration only account for $309 billion and his proposed tax increases will only raise $267 billion leaving a shortfall of $60 billion.
So far the Democrats have refused to tell us how they are going to pay for their health plan. What we do know about the plan is Obama’s intentions to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy and hire 800 new IRS agents to go after offshore tax shelters.
Obama is also considering a plan that would tax the health benefits provided by private employers. This is the very thing Obama criticized John McCain for during the 2008 presidential campaign. If health insurance was taxed as regular income, the government could potentially collect an additional $250 billion a year. Those costs will be shouldered by everyone insured by their employer, provided employers continue to offer healthcare once the tax shelter is lifted.
One notorious pitfall of any government program is that the program always costs more than originally estimated. One reason is that slick politicians lowball the cost as a market strategy to get the measure past and because there are always hidden costs and unforeseen crisis that require more money to keep the program solvent.
Both Medicare and Medicaid cost significantly more than they were originally estimated by over $60 billion. Medicare will exceed the payroll tax by 2017. Medicare is already committed to paying $38 trillion over the next 75 years. Adding to those costs Obama’s nationalized health plan will run an additional $15 trillion.
Another example is President Bush’s massive $534 billion Prescription Drug Benefit Plan to Medicare. Current estimates now place that at $1.2 trillion by 2015. And that’s not all; the 75 year outlook places the added burden to Medicare at $4.4 trillion.
Nowhere to be found in any of these proposals is how to cover those future costs.
If Massachusetts State run healthcare model teaches us anything it is giving the government greater control over healthcare will result in burdensome consequences for taxpayers and healthcare consumers. The original cost estimate was $125 million. This price tag, however, has risen faster than originally predicted to an excess of $400 million in 2009 and will cost the state an estimated $869 million in 2010. Many recipients of the new Massachusetts health system find themselves without a physician because doctor’s offices aren’t taking new patients.
Politicians, in their vigor to promote entitlement spending, say they can do it all; cut taxes, reduce the deficit, and provide healthcare to everyone at a lower cost. History has shown this to be false. Something has to give; expect higher costs or less coverage. This will result in nothing less than lucrative government contracts financed by the tax payer.
Here we have another expensive federal program when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned even without this trillion dollar healthcare reform the ever increasing costs of current programs will soon affect interest rates, economic growth and financial stability. Government has shown us that cutting spending in any meaningful way is pure fantasy. Since it is difficult for politicians to relinquish any government program there are only two choices; raise taxes or borrow money further increasing the deficit.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Quote Of The Day:
“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right.”—Hugo Chavez
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez chiding that Barrack Obama is more liberal than Fidel Castro and himself.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez chiding that Barrack Obama is more liberal than Fidel Castro and himself.
More Hypocrisy from the Obama Administration
During the elections Barrack Obama stated that Iran, Cuba, Venezuela are tiny countries that pose no serious threat to the United States.
See Video
Brezhnev never took Kennedy’s diplomatic solutions seriously until he blockaded Cuba leaving the U.S. and the Soviets tittering on the brink of war.
SALT I and SALT II were miserable failures. There wasn’t a serious or lasting nuclear treaty with the Soviets until Ronald Reagan began a massive military build up that forced the Soviets to negotiations proving that negotiating form a position of strength is a recipe for success.
Now Barrack Obama has succumbed to the idea Iran will become a nuclear state, “Iran may have some right to nuclear energy” says Obama.
In N. Korea his strategy is more of the same; to go back to the table for more talks which have failed for last six years.
According to Hilleary Clinton’s warning to N. Korea, which makes no mention of preemption, is a warning without teeth. It would appear American military intervention will come only after an attack on S. Korea or Japan.
Time and time again talk has proven cheap when dealing with these rogue regimes whose leaders are nothing more than escaped mental patients from the asylum. History has shown us that negotiation from a position of weakness is a recipe for failure. Yet the Obama administration is hell bent on modeling failed formulas from the past.
Obama has accepted a nuclear Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela who is currently working with Russia to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is fine with everyone going nuclear except the U.S. where he refuses to allow any new nuclear power plants and has embarked America on a course of green energy that is less than environmental friendly and guaranteed high costs in both jobs loss and tax payer subsides.
See Video
Brezhnev never took Kennedy’s diplomatic solutions seriously until he blockaded Cuba leaving the U.S. and the Soviets tittering on the brink of war.
SALT I and SALT II were miserable failures. There wasn’t a serious or lasting nuclear treaty with the Soviets until Ronald Reagan began a massive military build up that forced the Soviets to negotiations proving that negotiating form a position of strength is a recipe for success.
Now Barrack Obama has succumbed to the idea Iran will become a nuclear state, “Iran may have some right to nuclear energy” says Obama.
In N. Korea his strategy is more of the same; to go back to the table for more talks which have failed for last six years.
According to Hilleary Clinton’s warning to N. Korea, which makes no mention of preemption, is a warning without teeth. It would appear American military intervention will come only after an attack on S. Korea or Japan.
Time and time again talk has proven cheap when dealing with these rogue regimes whose leaders are nothing more than escaped mental patients from the asylum. History has shown us that negotiation from a position of weakness is a recipe for failure. Yet the Obama administration is hell bent on modeling failed formulas from the past.
Obama has accepted a nuclear Iran, N. Korea, and Venezuela who is currently working with Russia to develop nuclear power.
The Obama administration is fine with everyone going nuclear except the U.S. where he refuses to allow any new nuclear power plants and has embarked America on a course of green energy that is less than environmental friendly and guaranteed high costs in both jobs loss and tax payer subsides.
The Morality of Climate Change
According to this article by Paul Driessen Harvard economists predict Cap and Trade will cost the average American family an additional $1500 a year in energy costs. MIT economists predict it will be even higher toping out at $3000 per family. This is sick and immoral and based on lies and unproven theories.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.
You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com
And Eco- Imperialism.com
Compared to no cap-and-tax regime, Waxman-Markey would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, according to an updated study by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The bill would also cost an additional 1.1 million jobs each year, raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, cause a 74% hike in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices, and add $1,500 to the average family’s annual energy bill, says Heritage.
The Congressional Budget Office says the poorest one-fifth of families could see annual energy costs rise $700 – while high income families could see their costs rise $2,200 a year. Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that the average person could pay an extra $1,500 per year for energy. MIT says household energy costs could climb $3,000 per year.
Where will families find that extra cash? “What do I tell a single mom, making $8 an hour?” asked North Carolina congressman (and Congressional Black Caucus member) G. K. Butterfield.
In Spain "green jobs" cost more to create than jobs in other enegry related fields. Can this be our future?
Spain’s experience should be cautionary, but probably won’t be. According to a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Spanish taxpayers spent $800,000 for each new job in the wind turbine industry (mostly installing towering turbines) – and destroyed 2.2 regular jobs for each “green” job, primarily because pricey “renewable” electricity forced companies to lay off workers, to stay in business.
And we get this from a President who has vowed to respect and value science.
You can find more articles by Paul Driessen at Townhall.com
And Eco- Imperialism.com
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Obma's Supreme Court Pick
It’s official, but no surprise, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barrack Obama made it clear from the beginning he wanted to renovate the Supreme Court by picking a Justice who empathizes with special interests and perceived victims groups. Speaking at a Planned Parenthood gathering, Obama laid out his criteria for picking judges: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”
Not withstanding, “empathy” being code for Judicial activism, Obama claimed today that the Judicial role is to interpret law not make law, but this is what Sotomayer has to say:
Showing her predilection for political activism (and lack of Judicial objectivism), Sotomayor quipped, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Diversity Lecture Berkeley Law School.
Not only is this indicative of judicial subjectivism it is also indicative of a racial connotation. Just imagine the uproar if a White male judge said that a white male can make better decisions than a Latino woman.
Sotomayer is just the ticket Obama needs to achieve his social agenda. Obama writing in his book, Audacity of Hope, confirmed his belief that the Constitution "is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Translation: Your liberties are subject to judicial re-write. She certainly personifies this progressive ideology.
As an example of what we can expect on how Sonia Sotomayor will likely rule she recently gained some modicum of notoriety by killing a reverse racial discrimination case brought against the city of New Haven CT. This case was brought forward by white firefighters who topped the promotion exam but where not promoted. The case cites the city’s review which found that black candidates scored below the level required for promotion and as a result, the city threw out the test results.
Criticizing Sotomayor for a lack of reasoning dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes complained that Sotomayer’s single-paragraph oppinion ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.
The case is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Sotomayer has a history of having her decisions overturned by the High Court. Now she stands to be a member of it.
Barrack Obama made it clear from the beginning he wanted to renovate the Supreme Court by picking a Justice who empathizes with special interests and perceived victims groups. Speaking at a Planned Parenthood gathering, Obama laid out his criteria for picking judges: “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”
Not withstanding, “empathy” being code for Judicial activism, Obama claimed today that the Judicial role is to interpret law not make law, but this is what Sotomayer has to say:
Showing her predilection for political activism (and lack of Judicial objectivism), Sotomayor quipped, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." -- Diversity Lecture Berkeley Law School.
Not only is this indicative of judicial subjectivism it is also indicative of a racial connotation. Just imagine the uproar if a White male judge said that a white male can make better decisions than a Latino woman.
Sotomayer is just the ticket Obama needs to achieve his social agenda. Obama writing in his book, Audacity of Hope, confirmed his belief that the Constitution "is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Translation: Your liberties are subject to judicial re-write. She certainly personifies this progressive ideology.
As an example of what we can expect on how Sonia Sotomayor will likely rule she recently gained some modicum of notoriety by killing a reverse racial discrimination case brought against the city of New Haven CT. This case was brought forward by white firefighters who topped the promotion exam but where not promoted. The case cites the city’s review which found that black candidates scored below the level required for promotion and as a result, the city threw out the test results.
Criticizing Sotomayor for a lack of reasoning dissenting Judge Jose Cabranes complained that Sotomayer’s single-paragraph oppinion ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.
The case is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Sotomayer has a history of having her decisions overturned by the High Court. Now she stands to be a member of it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Unveiling the lies
Thomas J. DiLorenzo In his article on “Never-Ending Government Lies About Markets” on Mises eloquently points out the truth about the deceptions perpetrated on the public about the great failures of capitalism for the purposes of creating more regulation in the name of protecting the public. Like a good parent government knows best but unlike a good parent they are willing to deceive you in order to fulfill their agenda.
Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, over 100 federal agencies, more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register, and dozens of state and local government agencies that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of
• Bank holding companies
• State-chartered banks
• Foreign branches of member banks
• Edge and agreement corporations
• US state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks
• Nonbanking activities of foreign banks
• National banks (with the Comptroller of the Currency)
• Savings banks (with the Office of Thrift Supervision)
• Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies
• Thrift holding companies
• Financial reporting
• Accounting policies of banks
• Business "continuity" in case of an economic emergency
• Consumer-protection laws
• Securities dealings of banks
• Information technology used by banks
• Foreign investments of banks
• Foreign lending by banks
• Branch banking
• Bank mergers and acquisitions
• Who may own a bank
• Capital "adequacy standards"
• Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities
• Equal-opportunity lending
• Mortgage disclosure information
• Reserve requirements
• Electronic-funds transfers
• Interbank liabilities
• Community Reinvestment Act subprime lending requirements
• All international banking operations
• Consumer leasing
• Privacy of consumer financial information
• Payments on demand deposits
• "Fair credit" reporting
• Transactions between member banks and their affiliates
• Truth in lending
• Truth in savings
That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Story of stuff
This video is supposed to be the story of the "effects of human consumption" that teaches kids to be accountable. Does this challenge the minds of kids or does it indoctrinate them?
Monday, May 11, 2009
The Unholy Alliance
The assaults on freedom take on many forms and come from many directions. In our fight to remain a free people we must realize it isn’t only the altruists who worship at the altar of collectivism that we need to watch out for. It also comes in the form of vicarious entanglements between big business and government.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
This unholy alliance between government and big business has wreaked havoc once again on the economy and instead of being exposed for what it is it goes largely unnoticed. Government in its outrage gives the corporate elites trillions in taxpayer money while hiding its culpability behind a veil of anti-business rhetoric and lip service.
Not everyone gets off so easily however. In an attempt to muddy the water and rescue union workers in the auto industry the government threatened non-tarp lenders resisting the sale of Chrysler with the full-force of the White House press corps to ruin their reputations. They were also threatened to have the IRS sicced on them and having the Securities and Exchange Commission rip through their books looking for anything and everything to destroy them with according to Thomas E. Lauria the lawyer representing the hedge funds. Faced with these sorts of threats, these funds submitted to the White House.
The fact is the treasury department is being run by boogieman Rahm Emmanuel who is infamous for being the attack dog for the Clinton Administration. It isn’t any secret that he wants the Treasury where he can finally wield omnipotent authority over the most untouchable dept. in the U.S. government.
Such outright thuggery by Obama’s henchmen is a sure and certain sign of our descent into “Fascism” or at least it certainly gives the appearance of a dictatorship—and in some ways it is.
Economic fascism takes on many forms and sooner or later one can be sure it will morph into political fascism or at least it is another pillar of support for political fascism.
America’s form of fascism is very advanced and complex it has been woven into the fabric of society through years of legislation and court rulings. It’s really an interwoven patchwork of laws, philosophies, and relationships and as such it would be difficult if not down right impossible to undo—at least completely. Normally fascism is when private industry owns the means of production but government dictates controls over them. In America it has taken on the face of unholy matrimony between government and business where both partners protect the interests of the other–for good or for bad.
What the corporate elites get out of the marriage is conditions favorable to them that bestow protection from competitors and allows them access to easy money and easy credit to make billions of dollars. This also allows for the creation of mega-corporations that are to big to fail.
Of course this isn’t always a synergetic symbiosis by any means because what is required by the corporate elites in return for this favoritism is an obligation to lend moral support—or at least keep silent—for legislation and policies that might not always seem business friendly. They must gratuitously give financial support for political campaigns and surrender tax dollars for financing massive government expansionism—In other words the big business elites are the catalyst for the political elites to gain and maintain POWER.
Do you ever wonder why corporations give so much money to political campaigns? Have you noticed they almost always give money to both parties? It is because no matter who wins the elections it is business as usual. Some of the most devout supporters of government intervention are some of the richest capitalist elites—Warren Buffett talking head for government bailouts and Obama’s stimulus plan as one example. And despite all the anti-capitalist rhetoric that has gone on for the past fifty or so years on Capital Hill nothing really ever changes.
Let me explain, the Federal Reserve is made up of a board of directors who come form investment banking, naturally they are going to give preferential treatment to the financial markets. Although the FED is not a government entity per se it is still the purveyor of government monetary policy. The FED has been infamously implicated with every boom and bust cycle since its inception. During the recession of the late 1920’s it was the FED’s mis-correction of the markets resulting in unrealistically high interest rates and withholding money from circulation combined with war debt from WWI, and corporate protectionism through tariffs that caused the Great Depression. The FEDs culpability in today’s crisis is by creating easy money by setting unrealistically low interest rates and putting to much money in circulation. These sorts of artificial manipulations distort market forces and create bigger boom cycles but also cause bigger bust cycles.
Everyone in the business world knows about these boom and bust cycles. They are a part of the everyday economic landscape. Traditionally the way the financial sector handles these booms and bust cycles is to get in on the boom make as much money as possible and try to predict when to get out before the bust. There will be a bust because the market has to correct itself. Usually these boom and bust cycles come and go fairly quickly without much harm being done. But every now and then artificial market manipulations combine with other aberrant and unforeseen forces to create a financial tsunami. But before it washes ashore engulfing everything in its path, the financial elite, with surfboards in tow, rush into the waters hoping to catch a ride on the big kahuna wave and cash in and get out before the wave breaks with catastrophic impact upon the rocks. In other words it is an all-out hit and run speed race to make billions in a short period of time risking everything if they don’t get out in time. That’s how it works—more or less. Sometimes they don’t get out of the way fast enough. Of course government acting as a life lifeguard, backed with what must seem to them as an endless supply of taxpayer dollars, is ready and obligated to bail them out.
All anyone has to do is to take a closer look at the connections between Wall Street and Washington to see that many folks in influential positions in Washington came from Wall Street or went to work for Wall Street making huge fortunes after they left the government.
For example, President Bush’s family made their fortune in oil; Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton. Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton, later became the CEO for Citigroup’s executive committee, Henry Paulson was the CEO for Goldman Sachs before becoming the Secretary of Treasury under Georg Bush. And the list goes on. Many in Congress and the Whitehouse have made fortunes in capital ventures and other forms of business.
Barrack Obama, with all his talk of “change we can believe in” and hailing himself as the savior of the working class, hasn’t changed a thing. For all his talk it is the big business elites who are getting trillions of taxpayer dollars. Of course John McCain would have done the same thing as did Bush with his TARP funds. This is why this is a non-partisan problem—after all freedom is in everyone’s best interest, right?
The question one needs to ask himself for a clearer view of things is who is benefited from government bailouts and stimulus bills Big Business or the taxpayer?
Perhaps one of the most damaging thing this unholy union does is it creates a misaligned view of capitalism which fosters fear of exploitation and anti-free market sentiments. This fear or mistrust of capitalism is the exact impetus that allows such an alliance to persist. Of course the economic model we have today is NOT capitalism. Under capitalism businesses are at the mercy of market forces that keep things streamlined and in order. Disorder brings chaos which brings more streamlining and integrity. In its current form there can be no integrity. True capitalism breeds competition, fairness in the marketplace, integrity, opportunity, choice, quality, and freedom. The mega corporations could have never grown so large that they couldn’t fail if it weren’t for government intervention.
What all the bailouts and stimulus packages really amounts to is just another wealth redistribution scheme only this time instead of taking from the rich and giving it to the poor, worse, it takes money from every taxpayer—in fact, generations of taxpayers—and redistributes it to the corporate elites. Now tell me government and business is not in bed together. Whether you call it economic fascism or a mixed economy or whatever, what it really boils down to is a pseudo–uncapitalist economy run by a handful of corporate and political elites.
Change we can believe in would be a divorce between government and big business—and other special interest elites too. We need to allow the free market to be free from the corruptive influences of this unholy marriage. This would allow the market forces to police corrupt corporations—in other words let the company, who’s CEO and Board of Directors who make bad decisions, fail and investors who throw money into risky ventures that artificial prop up values, that cause bubbles, die by the sword. In the end there will be less of a tendency towards fascism, better business models, less risk, more choices of products and services, better products at lower prices, more jobs, more opportunity for the creative entrepreneur, and fewer and less severe booms and busts.
The Road to Fascism
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So it would seem the road to fascism is also paved with good intentions.
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Big government is intended to help people, taxation is a means for a benevolent government to afford to help people, the bailout plan is intended to save our financial institutions, the stimulus package is intended to save and create jobs, support for organized labor is intended to help to protect American workers, etc.
The unfortunate reality is each of these points also has unintended consequences. For example big government centralizes and consumes power—perhaps the most dangerous consequence of all. Taxes are taken from one group of people and redistributed to another group of people which diminishes property rights and feeds class warfare. Our current economic crisis was due to failed government policy, corporate favoritism, and Wall Street greed perpetuated by their government allies, the bailout plans and stimulus packages benefit the corporate elites. Unionized labor—perhaps at one time relevant—in today’s society of world markets and international competition makes American companies less competitive.
For those who wish to remain a free people need to recognize the philosophies that are inherently malignant to freedom. The philosophic combatants are “reason and logic” on one side and “pragmatism” on the other. It is the ability to recognize and interact appropriately with an independent reality. It is the ability to recognize the unintended consequences and their causes.
Unfortunately “pragmatism”—which ignores independent reality when it is inconvenient—has been winning the battle.
For instance, how many of you have come to the realization that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans philosophically? The difference between modern Democrats and Republicans is so insignificant that it could be said we are nearing a one party system. For all the rhetoric between them at the core they are both fascists pushing our country dangerously close to totalitarianism.
As a measure to understand the relationship between causality and consequence—cause and effect—of this philosophic “nationalized pragmatism” to compare where we once were to where we are now, and to see where we are heading politically as a nation, imagine if you will, a horizontal line-graph numbering 0-10; 0 being the far extreme political “left” and 10 being the far extreme political “right”. Also, 0 represents totalitarianism and at the opposite end of the spectrum is a 10 which represents anarchy.
To illustrate; the original colonists prior to the constitution, under the “Articles of Confederation,” were about an 8 or 9 on this graph. Later when the Constitution was ratified, with added governmental controls, the colonists were at about a 7 on the graph.
Today we find our society tittering at the ragged edge of totalitarianism at about a 2 on the graph. Why? The philosophies and agenda of both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally the same, they both embrace the same moral philosophy which is synonymous with “altruism” and in politics altruism is practiced as “collectivism.” In order for collectivism to be initiated and maintained government has to coerce individuals to sacrifice their incomes and property for the greater good of society. Such an immoral philosophy obviously pushes the country further to the left towards totalitarianism and serfdom, if in fact, the country isn’t already there.
The majority of Americans today stand somewhere in the middle politically, at or near the center— a 4 or a 5 on the graph. Yet the government is still much further to the left. What accounts for this difference? It is because the individual voters only matter in an election year. This can be seen when all the candidates running for office make a mad dash towards the center of the political spectrum during the campaign trail and then back to the left after the election is over. A good example of this was witnessed during the 2008 Presidential elections when the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate, Barrack Obama, reinvented himself as a moderate and made appeals to the political center vying for moderate votes. Now that he is President he is governing from the left. The same can be said for President George Bush who ran for President on so called conservative principles but once in office he began a campaign of spending and government expanding programs including the massively expensive social “Drug Prescription Plan” for seniors. Bush’s spending and expansionism is only outdone by Obama.
Once the elections are over it is back to business as usual which is catering to special interests. To further illustrate my point, there is a deception being perpetrated here—or at least a misconception. Have you ever stopped to think about who is benefited and who is harmed by the bailouts and stimulus packages? Big Business wins out and the individual taxpayer—the working class—is the loser. So tell me, who is government more beholden to?
Anytime a group or movement or industry seeks protections or subsidies from government and is granted them, forces are unleashed that drive the nation towards totalitarianism. This is because more government, more spending, and more coercion of the taxpayer are needed to fund and administer the new programs.
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from, whether it is from big business, the environmental movement, oil, agriculture, or defense industries, etc, it doesn’t matter. When government grants these groups with special privileges, bestowing upon them protractions from competitors, giving them taxpayer backed insurance (FDIC), price controls, or subsidies—or quite frankly anytime the government creates a new program it creates a special interest—such actions either create a new special interest or expands an existing special interest who in-turn begin seeking more favors from government which puts government on a dangerous and reckless course towards totalitarianism as government grows, new taxes are levied, and power is centralized.
As government moves increasingly further to the left, individualism finds less relevance in society and individual rights are regarded as secondary to the rights of the state.
When freedom-loving segments of the population protest such abuses they are labeled as extremists. Take the recent media attacks on “Tea Parties” for example. The further to the left the government trudges the more the folks on the right seem extreme in their views.
This new view of the right is amply illustrated in the DHS report on “Extreme Right Wing” threats, where the DHS redefined what constitutes a potential threat. Basically what the report implies is that any ideology that is not consistent with their new found mores is a threat to government and ultimately to society. The report identifies Iraqi Veterans, gun owners, people who buy ammo, opponents of abortion, tax protesters, and just about anyone else who disagrees with the current administration. By the way the DHS report is consistent with Missouri’s own report who identifies people who display bumper stickers with third party candidates such Ron Paul or Bob Barr as potential threats—I wouldn’t be surprised to see some law enforcement agencies profiling folks driving four-wheel drive pickup trucks displaying NRA stickers.
To further illustrate this point: Recently a Louisiana man was pulled over, detained, and questioned by law enforcement officers, for having a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker displayed on his vehicle. He was subsequently warned by the police officers of the "subversive" message it sent.
Basically what we are witnessing is a paradigm shift away from patriotism and individualism, replacing it with statism and collectivism. This is echoed in the words of former Sec of State Colin Powell when he said, “…people want more government in their lives not less”—so be careful what you whish for because you just might get it. In our strange new world people who are vocal about their individual rights, favor constitutional restraints on government, and oppose spending and unfair taxes are people to be loathed by government (and the left) and profiled as potential threats.
Of course there are some who welcome this shift as liberating. Abraham Lincoln once made an enlightening observation:
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The New American Dictatorship
When the president of the United States can fire a CEO of a non-government enterprise it is dictatorship. When a president can by the power of whim abuse the sanctity of contract law it is not only a shameful act it is an act of a dictator. When a President can exercise omnipotent power over private contracts and independent financial institutions it is dictatorship.
At the end of the video, Mr. Kudlow asks Donald Luskin a very interesting question in which I personally find the answer very profound. Here is the exchange in case you’ve forgotten or missed it.
Kudrow: “The rule of law we have contract rights. Doesn’t that amount to anything, isn’t there a value to preserving that…”
Donald Luskin: “You cannot run an economy unless property rights are well established and well represented and well agreed on. It is a formula for the road to serfdom.”
What we are experiencing here folks is government openly exercising omnipotence over the economy and industry.
At the end of the video, Mr. Kudlow asks Donald Luskin a very interesting question in which I personally find the answer very profound. Here is the exchange in case you’ve forgotten or missed it.
Kudrow: “The rule of law we have contract rights. Doesn’t that amount to anything, isn’t there a value to preserving that…”
Donald Luskin: “You cannot run an economy unless property rights are well established and well represented and well agreed on. It is a formula for the road to serfdom.”
What we are experiencing here folks is government openly exercising omnipotence over the economy and industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
