Libertarian Jungle

Obama Raises Taxes on the Poor . . . Whaaat?!?

2009-03-12T21:30:00.000-07:00

Obama promised throughout the election that he would pay for his massive spending expenditures by taxing the rich. He said that he would only raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more. (Although his advisors said that he would raise taxes on those making as little as $75,000 or more.) I will not preach about the fact that taxing the successful to reward failure serves more to promote failure than encourage success, because most of the people who did not understand that in the first place have already become frustrated enough with my blog to stop reading. However, I do want to point to the politics of those accusations. It is about playing groups against other groups.

When Obama was campaigning, he was threatening to tax a minority of Americans (the rich) for the benefit of the rest of us. He was playing the minority against the majority. With a Federal Court system that does not believe in the principles of the Constitution, that is the best way to win in a democracy. However, the rich is not the only politically attractive minority group to attack, and if you look at Obama’s first tax increase, you will see that he understands entirely how to play the majority of Americans against the minority.

The majority of Americans do not smoke. Most Americans think it is disgusting habit in which they would not partake. That is great. It is bad for one’s health, and the majority of Americans are probably right. However, in the America I know, a person’s life is their own. If they want to smoke, as long as it does not impact those around them, then they should be allowed that right. While the right to smoke might be a priority to some voters, and seen as something they would support, it is most definitely a deciding issue only among a minority of voters. To Obama, this equals pay dirt.

Obama’s first big tax increase is on smokers. This plays well into the politics of using the big hand of government to play one group of Americans against another, but seems to fly in the face of his promise to tax the rich. According to a 2008 Gallup poll, “21% of Americans say they smoke.” However, “only 13% of those in the top two income brackets (those with incomes of $90,000 or more) say [they smoke.]” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/Among-Americans-Smoking-Decreases-Income-Increases.aspx

So based on this analysis, and the US Census data projections for 2008: http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/perinc/new01_001.htm, here is what we can conclude:

There are 44,676,980 people making less than $48,000 per year subject to Obama’s tax hike.

There are only 2,135,380 people making over $90,000 per year subject to Obama’s tax hike.

Therefore 2,092% more people are paying more taxes who make less than $48,000 per year, versus those who make over $90,000 per year.

So, there you have it. Obama will raise taxes on 13% of those making over $90,000 per year, and on 24% of those making less than $48,000 per year. Many of those who voted for Obama will be shocked that he raised taxes on the poor, but those of us who understand the politics of group dynamics, which was introduced to George W. Bush by Carl Rove, will understand completely this money grab. Anybody who read about Carl Rove’s method of running an election could only conclude that Obama took Rove’s method, and truly perfected it, to the determent of some working Americans.

So, now you ask yourself: I do not smoke, so why do I care?

The answer is this: You are in a minority. You may be a white, middle class protestant male, but you are a minority. If Obama can play the majority against you, you lose. You may own a gun. You are in the minority. You may bicycle to work. You are in the minority. You may own more than an acre of land. You are in the minority. You may live within one block of a subway terminal. You are in the minority. NO MATTER WHAT, YOU ARE A MINORITY. And if Obama decides you are in the "bad" minority group: YOU MUST PAY!

What We Needed Was Change

2009-03-05T18:05:00.000-08:00

Americans elected Barak Obama solely on his promises to change the way things were being done in Washington. If I would have believed him, I might have voted for him. However, I did not believe him, and it turns out I was right not to believe him. Here is a list of the top three things that needed changing in Washington and Obama’s record so far:

Eliminate the power of lobbyists.

The first step in eliminating the power of lobbyists would be to reduce the size of government. Without a big bureaucracy to back their initiatives, lobbyists would have little for which to lobby. We all know, after Obama’s so called stimulus package that he will not reduce the size of government, but let’s see where his record stands on at least keeping a face of less lobbyist influence:

According to Boston Globe before Obama’s inauguration, “Barack Obama, who vowed during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House," said through a spokesman yesterday that he would allow lobbyists on his transition team as long as they work on issues unrelated to their earlier jobs.”

We all know that Dick Cheney’s job was not directly related to his ties at Halliburton, but we also know the results. Apparently, Obama can not see the simularities.

From ABC News, “Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration, a recent lobbyist for investment banking giant Goldman Sachs is in line to serve as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.”

From CNSNews.com, “Mark Patterson, a former lobbyist with the financial firm Goldman Sachs, will be chief of staff for newly appointed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, according to the National Journal.” Now there’s a coincidence.

And from Hotair.com, here is a comprehensive list, so far:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

So, important change number one, it is safe to say, Obama failed.

2. Bush’s record deficits were perhaps the major cause of the current financial crisis. Let’s see Obama’s “Change”:

Bush’s record deficits were perhaps the major cause of the current financial crisis. Let’s see Obama’s change:

Obama says that he will cut “the one trillion dollar” deficit he inherited by half, but for those of you who graduated American schools, the deficit he inherited was slightly above $400 Billion. So, If he cuts a $1 Trillion deficit he created in half, it would still be more than any of Bush’s deficits.

3. We needed to restore the power of checks and balances by eliminating Bush’s abuse of executive orders. Let’s see Obama’s record:From WFN.com: In the first two weeks since taking office, President Obama has signed a record number of executive orders - eight in his first 11 days in office.

Promises, Promises

2009-02-05T15:34:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Times:

Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama's campaign promises to stop the raids.

The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.

“The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind," White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

Medical use of marijuana is legal under the law in California and a dozen other states, but the federal government under President Bush, bolstered by a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, argued that federal interests trumped state law. [It is interesting to note here, that it was mainly the Conservative Justices on the Court that opposed this ruling, and the Liberals who supported it.]

Dogged by marijuana advocates throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama repeatedly said he was opposed to using the federal government to raid medical marijuana shops, particularly because it was an infringement on states' decisions.

“I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," Mr. Obama told the Mail Tribune newspaper in Oregon in March, during the Democratic primary campaign.

He told the newspaper the "basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors, I think that's entirely appropriate."

Mr. Obama is still filling key law enforcement posts. For now, DEA is run by acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, a Bush appointee.

Special Agent Sarah Pullen [for you Obama voters out there, that is Pullen, not Palin] of the DEA's Los Angeles office said agents raided four marijuana dispensaries about noon Tuesday. Two were in Venice and one each was in Marina Del Rey and Playa Del Ray -- all in the Los Angeles area.

A man who answered the phone at Marina Caregivers in Marina Del Rey said his shop was the target of a raid but declined to elaborate, saying the shop was just trying to get back to operating.

Agent Pullen said the four raids seized $10,000 in cash and 224 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana-laced food, such as cookies. No one was arrested, she said, but the raid is part of an ongoing investigation seeking to trace the marijuana back to its suppliers or source . . .

"It's clear that the DEA is showing no respect for President Obama's campaign promises," said Dan Bernath, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, which advocates for medical marijuana and for decriminalizing the drug.

California allows patients whose doctors prescribe marijuana to use the drug. The state has set up a registry to allow patients to obtain cards allowing them to possess, grow, transport and use marijuana.

Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group in California, called the raids an attempt to undermine state law and said they were apparently conducted without the knowledge of Los Angeles city or police officials.

He said the DEA has raided five medical marijuana dispensaries in the state since Mr. Obama was inaugurated and that the first took place on Jan. 22 in South Lake Tahoe.

"President Obama needs to keep a promise he made, not just in one campaign stop, but in multiple speeches that he would not be spending Justice Department funds on these kinds of raids," Mr. Hermes said. "We do want to give him a little bit of leeway, but at the same time we're expecting him to stop this egregious enforcement policy that is continuing into his presidency."

He said he is aware that Mr. Obama has not installed his own DEA chief but that new Attorney General "Eric Holder can still suspend these types of operations."

The Justice Department referred questions to the White House.

Obama could have ended these raids, and helped a struggling business in the wake of an economic disaster, by simply issuing an executive order that the raids stop. I understand that the President did not have the time, having to conduct interviews with all mainstream media outlets, and these other important matters:

From the USA Today:

[Obama] plans to sign an executive order to create the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (described as an expansion of President Bush's Office of Faith-based initiatives).

(I thought Democrats were all about a separation of Church and State.)

Obama signed an order Jan. 23 reversing the "Mexico City policy" -- a prohibition first implemented by Ronald Reagan, which forbade the U.S. government from sending money to overseas family-planning organizations that perform abortions or offer abortion counseling.

(Apparently, Obama does not support a tax payer’s right to choose not to support abortion. The mantra of the left should be, “I support your freedom of choice, as long as your choice coincides with what I think you should choose.”)

From Arkansas Independent Media [bare with me, this is grueling]:

One executive order, Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws, mandates that all government contracting departments and agencies include a provision in every government contract (other than a collective bargaining agreement and those involving purchases of less than $100,000) stipulating that the contractor post a notice "in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted both physically and electronically," informing them of their rights under federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act…

The second executive order issued Friday, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, requires that any federal service contracts and solicitations for such contracts include a clause requiring contractors and their subcontractors to offer existing employees the right of first refusal to take positions for which they are qualified under the new contract.

(If you are like me, you ask yourself, “doesn’t the President of the United States have more important matters to attend to in his first month in office?” If you are like Obama, you are asking yourself, “What could be more important than paying back those unions who sent me so much money in the campaign?” I am so glad the Democrats ended the “culture of corruption” in Washington. /Sarcasm now off)

From CNN:

Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

(Finally, Obama signs an order that sticks to his campaign promises, kind of. During the campaign, Obama was agreeing with most of us Libertarians that the policies displayed at Gitmo were a disgrace to the United States. However, Obama could have ended the problem immediately, if rather than saying within a year, he would have said NOW. Perhaps he did not think that Bush had the right to hold people without a warrant, nor formal accusations, but he has no problem with him holding the very same power.)

Obama is now President, and he is still hiding behind the “It’s all Bush’s Fault” mentality. I can understand such an attitude when it comes to the economy, but the raids this week on those practicing an activity which violated no state laws were purely within his power to stop. However, he had to first satisfy the wishes of the huge abortion industry, as well as big labor, who gave him big bucks during the campaign. I cannot see how more of the same attitude of, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” in Washington offers anyone hope. Yes, they are different backs, and different scratchers, but they are all using our tax dollars as the fingernails that fulfill the promise.

The Japanese; The Americans; And Making Babies

2009-01-26T14:20:00.000-08:00

I came across a couple of different illustrations today of the difference between an optimistic society confronted by troubled financial times, and a pessimistic society encountering similar financial woes. The pessimistic society would be the United States. Our current President ran on the platform of HOPE, but there are those within his party who see Americans as hopeless. Here is what Nancy Pelosi said about three-quarters of a billion dollars of the economic stimulus package going to support “family planning groups.” (From this week with George Stephanopoulos.):

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Now here is what is happening in Japan, which is also faced with troubled times. (From CNN International):

TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- Even before one reaches the front door of Canon's headquarters in Tokyo, one can sense the virtual stampede of employees pouring out of the building exactly at 5:30 p.m.

Japan's birth rate of 1.34 is below the level needed to maintain the country's population.

In a country where 12-hour workdays are common, the electronics giant has taken to letting its employees leave early twice a week for a rather unusual reason: to encourage them to have more babies.

"Canon has a very strong birth planning program," says the company's spokesman Hiroshi Yoshinaga. "Sending workers home early to be with their families is a part of it."

Japan in the midst of an unprecedented recession, so corporations are being asked to work toward fixing another major problem: the country's low birthrate.

At 1.34, the birthrate is well below the 2.0 needed to maintain Japan's population, according to the country's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.

Keidanren, Japan's largest business group, with 1,300 major international corporations as members, has issued a plea to its members to let workers go home early to spend time with their families and help Japan with its pressing social problem.

One reason for the low birth rate is the 12-hour workday. But there are several other factors compounding the problem -- among them, the high cost of living, and social rigidity toward women and parenting.

In addition, Japan's population is aging at a faster pace than any other country in the world.

Analysts say the world's second-largest economy faces its greatest threat from its own social problems, rather than outside forces. And the country desperately needs to make some fixes to its current social and work structures, sociologists say.

Canon says its 5:30 p.m. lights-out program is one simple step toward helping address the population problem. It also has an added benefit: Amid the global economic downturn the company can slash overtime across the board twice a week.

"It's great that we can go home early and not feel ashamed," said employee Miwa Iwasaki.

The Japanese have something going for them that the Americans do not. They understand that a person should produce more than they consume. If a person produces more than they consume, then they are a benefit to society. Therefore, the more Japanese people, the better off Japan is. In America, however, we are told, and government practices reinforce, the notion that it is alright to consume more than you produce. The conclusion leaders like Nancy Pelosi will draw from this mindset is: the more Americans there are, the worse off society is as a whole.

If you need more evidence that the Japanese are better producers, you need look no further than the financial situations of Japanese auto manufactures versus American manufactures. Until recently, American cars sold far more quantity than their Japanese counterparts. However, while the Japanese manufactures were turning a profit, the American companies were turning to the government for a hand out. The difference was that the Japanese companies paid their employees based on the value of the work they provided the company. The American workers expected to be paid more money, regardless of the value of their work. If the value of what they produced was $35,000 per year, a Japanese auto worker would probably paid around $35,000. However an American worker would demand closer to $40,000. When situations like this become widespread, then children become a burden on the nation, rather than an investment in the nation’s future.

Pelosi talks about how children are a burden on society because of the educational costs of supporting them. However, education should be an expense that pays for itself. If that is the case, it is an investment, not a burden. If it is a burden, it is a burden because government schools do not prepare students to be productive members of society. The Japanese do not look at children as a burden to society, because their schools prepare students for successful careers, and instill in them the moral values of living within their means.

I do not believe that the majority of Americans have passed the threshold of believing that they should consume more than they produce. However, because of government taxation and redistribution of wealth, those who produce must produce enough for themselves, and to cover some of the expense of those who don’t produce. It is in the American mindset to be able to spend the value of what you produce, so when one American is spending the entire value of what he produces, and another American is spending a portion of that production as well, then we are left with the tremendous debt, both public and private, that is the true burden to America.

Rather than looking at more Americans as a problem, and spending $750,000,000 to ensure that we create as few as possible, perhaps we should be thinking about how to make Americans more productive. Perhaps we should allow people to keep the money they earn, thus creating an incentive to be as productive as possible. Perhaps we should not be handing out money to those who produce nothing, thereby forcing them to produce something. Perhaps the government should set an example to the average consumer, and not consume more than they collect. (I say collect in terms of the government, because for the most part, the government produces nothing, and only collects, or steals, that which is produced by others.) I believe that at the heart of what makes an American an American is a desire to produce, and if we nurture that desire, then every American will be an asset to society, and perhaps we will all get some time off work to go procreate!

My Hopes for the New Administration

2009-01-20T13:17:00.000-08:00

As Barak H. Obama, who has always talked about hope, is sworn in as President of the United States, I thought I would share my top three hopes for his new administration.

Hope 1: Obama will immediately abandon the liberal principles on which he ran, in order to serve the country, the same way Bush abandoned his principles to do what he thought was right for the country. (Remember Bush saying that the United States had no business "Nation Building" in 2000?)

Hope 2: I was wrong, and every experience throughout the history of man is a fluke, and you can actually create prosperity by punishing the most prosperous through taxation, and in so doing, create prosperity.

Hope 3: This is the most realistic of my hopes, but not my highest, as it may cause the recession to last longer than is necessary. My hope is that Obama will follow his principles, and America will see how dangerous said principles are. America would have to follow the same path it did in 1994, after 2 years of the Clinton Administration, in which we elected the most Libertarian leaning Congress of my lifetime, rather than the path of 1936, when America reelected FDR, whose only qualification was the fact that he ran the country for 4 years under the Depression that he helped to sustain. Clinton, after losing Congress, moved to the right, was reelected, and passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (One of the best pieces of legislation of my lifetime.) Roosevelt extended the Depression for another 4 years, to the point that it took an international economy destroyed by the perils of war for us to be saved.

As to point number 3, I was watching the news at my mother-in-law's house over Christmas, and there was someone on there who actually still stuck to the presumption that FDR saved us from the Depression, despite near economic consensus that his policies extended the Depression. The guy actually claimed that it takes government spending to get us out of a recession. He was never asked why, after years of several billion dollar deficits, we got into this recession in the first place, but I guess that would require a member of the media to have some independent thought, to both question Obama, and Bush's policies at the same time.

The Economics of Emotion

2008-12-22T15:07:00.000-08:00

I am going to suggest an experiment, but before conducting it in reality; I suggest conducting it in your mind. It is one that will combine economic theories with the world of emotions. The text book definition of economics is the study of who gets a limited quantity of resources, in a world of unlimited wants. I don’t like that definition, as I would prefer a definition more focused on the production of resources than the consumption; however, I believe it will do for this experiment.

There are two schools of thought on the answer to the above mentioned “fundamental question of economics.” (Some would argue that there are several schools, but other than the two I will mention, all others are diluted versions of the two true schools, with the possible exception of economic hedonism, which does not even claim to have any economic legitimacy on a large scale, so I will avoid it.) One school of thought is that all should produce as much as they can, and all should receive that which will most fully satisfy their basic economic needs. This school boils down to economic totalitarianism, or, by its other names, Socialism and Communism, and is best summed up by Karl Marx’s statement of, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” The other school states that everyone should produce as much as they are willing and able to produce, and they should trade what they produce for whatever goods they can get. This school of economic thought is Capitalism.

In the first school of thought, government is required to step in to ensure that everyone is producing as much as they can, and that nobody is getting more than they need. The only way to ensure fairness in this school of thought is for government to make sure that nobody is getting too much, and if someone is getting too much, the government should step in and spread out that wealth to those who are less economically satisfied. Some look at this type of society, and see everyone living equally, and think it is ideal.

In the second school of thought, there are lots of people who are unable to produce enough to satisfy their basic needs on one end of the economic scale, and there are a lot of people who produce enough to not only satisfy their basic needs, but also enough to live a life of luxurious consumption on the other side. Government has a much more limited role in this type of society, and its primary focus is to ensure that nobody takes that which they did not produce, or that which they did not fairly trade something to get. Some people will look at this type of society, and see the contrast between the rich and the poor, and say that it is unfair.

It is hard, without totally overhauling government, to test the two theories economically, since it is only the government that has the power to rob from the rich and give to the poor. However, most of us do have the power to test the two theories in the world of happiness. As I look around me, I see many people who are happy, and others who are miserable. (There are economically rich and poor in both groups.) An emotional socialist will look at these two groups, and say that it is an unfair state that brings this about, and we should do all that we can to even things out. However, an emotional capitalist will look at these two groups, and won’t care. They will be satisfied with whatever happiness they can create for themselves.

To conduct this experiment, it is important to do it to those close to us, since those will be the people over whom we have the most emotional power. If one person you are close to is happy, and either you or someone else close to you is unhappy, then to test Socialism, I say that all unhappy parties start poking fun at the person who is happy, so that the unhappy parties may be able to get some level of joy out of the situation, and knock the other person down a notch. You will help to bring about the Socialist ideal of “fairness.” If someone you are close to finds a lot of joy in doing something, and you do not, then ask the person to stop doing that which gives them joy, in exchange for something that will give both of you some smaller level of joy. Again, you will help to bring about the socialist ideal of “fairness.”

To test the economic idea of capitalism, do whatever it is that makes you happy, as long as it does not involve “stealing” another person’s happiness. If hanging out with your friends makes you happy, do it, as long as you are not making your friends unhappy. If spending time with your family makes you happy, do it, as long as it does not make your family unhappy. If smoking makes you happy, do it, as long as it is not making someone else unhappy. If drinking or doing drugs makes you happy, do it, as long as it will not lead you to do things that will make you or someone else unhappy. Crate your happiness however you can, but do not ask anyone else to partake in any activity that would make you happy, if it would make them unhappy (as that would be emotional socialism.) If sharing your happiness with others makes you happy, then do it (although not to make them happy, but because it makes you happy to do it.) If someone is irrationally unhappy, not because you are bothering them, but because they think it is unfair that you are happy and they are not, then you are not "stealing" their happiness. They are emotional parasites who create no happiness of their own, and feed off of the happiness of others.

There have been times in my life when I have tested the two economic theories in the above mentioned fashion. I did not do it with the intention of testing economics, but I did it nevertheless. I have found, and I am sure you will too, that practicing the theory of socialism in the realm of emotions resulted in me acting jealous and mean, and while it may have been done with the intention of lifting my happiness at the expense of someone else’s happiness, and to achieve an ideal of “fairness,” the result was a complete drainage of the happiness of all those around me. When I have practiced the emotional idea of capitalism, I have created happiness for myself, and I wore a smile, and my happiness made those around me want to create their own happiness, and find joy in life.

For all of those capitalists out there, I ask that you practice your economic ideals in your personal, emotional life, and it will create happiness for you and those around you. And what creates happiness in your circle of friends and family when practiced on the emotional level will create wealth for all of society when practiced on the economic level. For those socialists out there, I will warn you not to practice your economic theory in your personal, emotional life, as it will destroy happiness for you and those around you. And what destroys happiness in your circle of friends and family when practiced on the emotional level will destroy wealth for all of society when practiced on the economic level.

Libertarian Tax Talk

2008-12-15T16:09:00.000-08:00

My previous post begged a question: If government is necessary to maintain peace, but government can not justly take the product of an individual’s labor with force, then how should government, once established, fund itself.

Most of us understand that you can’t spend money that you do not have. The typical politician in Washington seems to not understand that, being November had a record national deficit, but the truth remains: You can only spend what you have (or in the case of deficit spending, what you plan on having in the future. Therefore, that record national deficit last month will eventually come due, and it will be up to us, or our children, to pay for it. As anyone who follows the news knows, a pyramid scheme can not last forever, and the government borrowing more money to pay the debt that it already borrowed is a pyramid scheme on a grand scale.) So the government needs money. But they can not justly confiscate the income of a citizen without that citizen’s consent. So how, then, could government create revenue to fund its necessary functions?

The first part of the answer is to focus on the necessary functions of government. Those necessary functions are only those vital activities that could not be handled safely by the private sector. Those functions that are handled by the private sector, or that are not vital, should not be handled by the government. Once all of those programs are eliminated, then government’s tab decreases substantially. However, the government will still need money, albeit in smaller amounts.

To foot the bill, the government can charge for the services that it provides by those who require the use of said services, or those who create the situation in which those services are needed. The first group would include all of us who depend on a functioning economy for the exchange of goods and services. The second group would include the criminals, who force the state to maintain a criminal justice system.

I will start with the second group, because an explanation of how they can compensate for their actions is simple enough. They will continue to pay fines for crimes committed, as they do now.

The first group is a little more complicated. All of us depend on the services of the civil justice system, even if we did not set foot in a courtroom in our lives. When we engage in an economic activity, we do so with the understanding that if the service or product we were rendered, or the compensation that we received for providing a service or product, is less than what was agreed to, we have the ability to take the offending party to court to receive the actual value or compensation that we deserve. This arrangement is enough to deter most of us from engaging in fraudulent economic activity, and since we are all receiving the benefit from this process, we should all contribute in proportion to the benefits we receive. However, this must be voluntary to be just.

The way that I would suggest providing this compensation is as follows: For any transaction to be supported by the courts, a small percentage of the value of what is being exchanged should be given to the government. If you are willing to engage in transactions without the security of it being backed by the civil justice system, then you would not have to pay the tax. For instance, when I go to the grocery store, I tend to pay for my purchases with a debit card. In that transaction, there are several parties involved, who all require some sort of trust. I trust that the food I am purchasing is untainted. The store trusts that the bank will pay on the demand of my debit card. The bank trusts that I will have enough money in my account to cover my spending. All of this trust is backed by the fact that if anyone of us faults on this trust, the offended party can bring a law suit. Therefore, if all three of those parties would wish to maintain that security under my proposed system, they would all volunteer to pay a small fee to the government to secure that right. If none of the parties wanted that security, then they would have to pay no taxes, but they would also have no protection against fraudulent activities.

Some businesses could, theoretically, in this system, establish themselves as so trustworthy, that one could do business with them without the security of the civil justice system. As a reward for this level of trust earned, they could avoid paying much of the taxes that a business who is constantly violating the trust of its constituents must pay. Those who require the government more, will be subjected to paying more.

There are several other ways where the government will be able to earn revenue, not mentioned above, but equally just. Some just taxes are already on the books. Most states now have lotteries. Nobody is forced to play the lottery, but some choose to do so. They are paying the taxes by choice, so therefore it is just. When going on the PA turnpike, I pay a toll. Nobody forces me to pay the toll, but I do because it is convenient. That tax is just. There are several other examples.

Government was established to prevent people from stealing from one another, but the government has grown to be the biggest thief of all, with the explanation that their thievery is necessary to pay for the services they offer. I have shown that government does not need to be a thief. Compulsory taxation is not a requirement for government to receive necessary revenue, but unfortunately, those who depend on the government for their often extravagant livelihood, convinced us that it is the only way to pay the bills.

Libertarians and the Republican Party

2008-12-08T13:19:00.000-08:00

After Thanksgiving, I was visiting with a friend, and mentioned something about being a Republican. She responded by asking, "Aren't you a Libertarian?" The answer is yes, I am both. However, the question then arises, in this age where the Republican Party supports atrocious candidates, such as John McCain, how can the Libertarian in me reconcile itself with my Republican voter registration? The answer is that the history of the Republican Party lends itself to Libertarian ideals, and the seed of individualism is still planted in the garden of Republican thought, although it is in danger of being strangled by the weeds of collectivism.

To prove my point, I will go back to the infancy of the Republican Party, when it was still a Grand Young Party. Following the Civil War, it was the Republicans who voted to end slavery, a horrendous institution dependent on the belief that sovereignty does not lie within the individual. Republicans then, as do Libertarians now, knew that no individual had the ability to own another individual, or, by the same logic, the product of that individual’s labor.

The next inquiry will have to be whether it is possible for a government to own another person, and therefore the product of their labor. To discover the answer, we must first examine the proper role of government, and the justification for government. As a libertarian, one must understand that sovereignty lies with the individual. That is to say, that a person is free because he is an individual and not because the government grants him that freedom. Freedom is not a gift of government to people, but the natural rights of individuals. But, at some point in the history of man, some individuals began to impose themselves upon other individuals, and therefore took away their freedom, in what would today be seen as criminal actions. Some philosophers, such as Locke, propose that at some point in prehistoric times, individuals got together, and developed a system of laws in order to prevent aggressive individuals from imposing themselves on other individuals. They created an institution and gave it the power to take away liberty from individuals who violated the set rules of society. This institution, which got its power from individuals, was called government.

I do not disagree with Locke’s logic, but I do disagree with the time that this switch took place. Locke places it at some vague point in prehistory, and I place it on July 4, 1776, when Americans got together and created The United States of America, and therefore paved the way towards the first truly just government. Before that time, governments did not exist, as Locke would have you believe, as institutions who received their power from individuals. Those in charge of governments, often times Kings, got their power from being the first or most successful individual to commit crimes against other individuals. They then passed down the power, which they took at the point of a sword, to their successors, who kept the power at the point of a gun. The Americans got together, and exercised their rights as individuals to break the chains of their oppressors, and created a government through the power of the individual. Individuals were then allowed to vote on this new system, and the following decade, the Constitution of the United States was created. Earth finally had a government on her soil that was justly formed.

One of the rights that individuals had as a natural right, but which they passed to the government, was the right to use force to protect the rights of an individual. Before the rise of the unjust governments of the Kings, if an individual violated the property of another individual, the violated individual had a right to exact revenge upon the violating individual. However, in that society, where revenge was often sought quickly, and without limitations, injustice often prevailed in the name of justice. It therefore became desirable for individuals to give up that power to a more neutral party, which was the government. Unfortunately, in so doing, we individuals had to give government the power of using force against individuals, which is always a dangerous proposition. A government, which is started as just, once given the power of force, will not likely stay just for long. Therefore the authors of the Constitution added strict limitations on the government, in the Bill of Rights.

As dangerous as it was to give government the power of force, it was still expected to be used reasonably as long as it was used within the just power of government. Since government’s power arises from the power of an individual, a government only has the power of an individual. Therefore, if an individual does not have the right to own another individual, then a government does not have the power to own another individual. And since the product of an individual’s labor is an extension of himself, an individual does not have the right to lay claim to the product of another individual’s labor, and therefore, neither does the government.

While the Republican Party has clearly abandoned the philosophy of individualism on which it was founded, it has kept many of the principles, although watered down. It is still the Republicans who tend to stand and fight the Democrats when the later try to claim more of the product of individual labor as the property of the government. When it comes to questions about using the government force against just law abiding citizens, I will tend to trust neither political party completely, but I would far more trust the Republicans than the Democrats.

The Cost of the Bail Out

2008-11-26T22:16:00.001-08:00

It is not very often that I am left speechless, with no comments of my own, but here you go, from http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/

"Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures - combined:

* Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion

* Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion

* Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion

* S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion

* Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion

* The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)

* Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion

* Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion

* NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion"

Okay, so I said I had no comments, but I was wrong. The New Deal has cost way more than the $500 billion cited above. The cost to America of taking this first step toward Socialism is immeasurable, and moast of the other costs cited above can be attributed to that, plus all of the costs accociated with caring for the current welfare state.

What's another $20 Billion to the Bush?

2008-11-24T13:28:00.000-08:00

So the Bush Administration took yet another step toward Socialism with its $20 billion rescue of Citigroup. This is before anyone has yet asked the serious question: Has the previous rescue package worked? The obvious answer is no. If it worked, then we would not need to bail out Citigroup.

The intent of the rescue package for banks was simple. The American economy (having switched over a half Century ago from a Capitalist economy to a Consumer Economy) is based on spending. People go to the banks to get money to spend. If the banks fail, then the American economy fails. However, if the government steps in and saves the banks, then other failing businesses can go to the banks to get the money they need, and therefore they will be saved as well, and keep the American economy rolling. The legislators were correct in assuming that banks would be better, albeit only slightly better, at determining who should get credit than the government. When the banks' coffers are full, they can lend money to profitable business ventures, and encourage sound entrepreneurial creation. That is the way it was supposed to work, but as a wise man once said, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."

What actually happened after the initial bailout was a lesson in behavioral psychology. A behavioral psychologist understands that a person's actions are determined by punishments and rewards. If a behavior is rewarded, you get more of it. If it is punished, you get less of it. So, from the behavioral perspective, ask yourself, "Was the bailout package a punishment or a reward?" The answer is that it was a reward. And what did it reward? Bad business decisions. The millions of businesses out there that were performing fine without government help did not get any money; it was only the ones that made bad investment decisions, such as giving home loans to those who could not afford to pay it back, that got a government hand out. That is why other businesses, such as the automotive industry, bypassed the banks, who were now supposed to have the money to keep the economy rolling, and went straight to the Federal Government when they needed money to keep their failing businesses going. A bank would probably tell the automotive executives that they would need to renegotiate labor agreements, and come up with a stable business plan in order to get a loan, but the opposite is true of the government. The government says simply that all you need to be is a failure to get money. The government rewards failure, while at the same time, punishes success by taxing those who do not need government money. When you reward failure, you get more of it; when you punish success you get less of it. I'm sure it does not take someone with a PhD in economics to understand why our Socialist economy is failing.

So, the government's answer was wrong. What is the correct answer? It is the same answer to most problems caused by the government. Get government out of the way. Instead of increasing regulations on the banking industry, decrease them, and let the large banks fail. With the large banks out of the way, there will be a vacuum in the financial world that will need to be filled. There would still be plenty of people out there with money, and with the elimination of regulations from the Federal Government, these people will not be afraid to step in and fill the void. There will also still be countless people out there who need loans, and are willing to pay interest for the right to use another person's money. These two parties will not have to hire countless attorneys to navigate their way through oceans of banking regulations. All they would need to do is reach an agreement. The borrower would get the money he needs, and the lender would have a money making opportunity. Money would still be changing hands, and the economy would keep rolling. The fact that the big businesses went under would be seen as a punishment for bad investment decisions, and those loaning money would be more inclined to stress the importance of sound business plans to those borrowing. If the government also refuses to step in to help those who borrowed more than they could afford, then the borrowers would see that as the punishment necessary to keep them from borrowing more than they could afford. The invisible hand of common sense would once again control the market, and we would all be better off.

Education and Obama Voters

2008-11-20T15:27:00.000-08:00

The media have for a long time tried to convince us that Republican voters, and especially conservative Republican voters, are stupid. This is in contrast to the well cultured, and sophisticated liberal Democrats. The Republicans have not fought this presumption, and at times, even helped it, with their constant criticisms of the Left as "elitists." However, the truth is much different.

As you can see in my profile, I substitute teach in addition to having a full time job. My teaching certification is in Social Studies education, and I must say, that what I am about to post, from that perspective, is very disturbing. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the amount of money spent per student has increased from $2,670 in the 1960-1961 school year, to $9,266 in the 2004-2005 school year. (That is adjusted for inflation. When left unadjusted, it is much more significant, from $393 per student in 1960, to $8,701 in 2005.) So what have we gotten out of this 247% increase in government spending? The same thing we get out of any increased government spending: Failure. Unfortunately, this increased spending, and resulting decreased achievement, may have been what has given us a Socialist President, despite over a century of evidence that Socialism does not work.

John Zogby, who is a well respected pollster, and has conducted work for the likes of CNN and C-Span, did a poll in which he asked Obama voters (It was post election) several questions about government, or the candidates in the 2008 Presidential race. Anyone who has talked to numerous Obama voters at length will not find the results surprising. Here is what he found:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

One of the most disturbing aspects of this poll is the fact that 57% of Obama supporters thought that Republicans controlled Congress. (Most of the other answers can be attributed to the fact that the major media outlets refused to cover Obama the same way they covered McCain. Even Tom Brokaw said, the weekend before the election, that there was a lot of stuff about Obama, including his philosophy on foriegn policy, that he did not know. What great journalism there, huh?) In the pre-election polls, Congress's approval rating was under 15%, which was half of Bush's basement low approval ratings. However, those who were dissatisfied with Congress were so ill-informed that they thought that the Republicans controlled Congress. (For those Obama voters out there, the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since 2007, following the Republicans miserable showings in the 2006 elections.)

To be fair, the person who commissioned this poll asked Zogby to administer a similar poll to McCain supporters, and Zogby refused. However, I am sure that McCain voters would have done significantly better. They had to be better informed than Obama voters, because if they only got news from sources such as CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS, The Washington Post, The New York Times, or just as credible sources such as Satuday Night Live or The Daily Show, then they could not have remained McCain supporters. While McCain supporters could not totally blind themselves to pro Obama news outlets, they had to seek out other sources for information. (Even the avid Fox News watcher will occasionally be exposed to other MSM news outlets.) The additional effort would naturally yeild more informed voters, who got information from both sides of the spectrum. For example, I would suspect that almost all McCain supporters could tell you that it was Palin that had a pregnant teenage daughter, or who had a huge textile budget, because there was no way to ignore those issues that the Main Stream Media thought were vitally important. However, it would only be McCain voters who would know the aparently less important (to the MSM) issues, like which candidate would support bankrupting the coal industry.

In addition, since McCain voters numbered almost half of the electoral population, and theoretically would have had a more favorable view towards Republicans, if they thought that the Republicans controlled Congress, then Congress would have had a higher approval rating. Based on the above information, I suspect that the 12% approval rating that Congress has been getting over the last few months are the 12% of the population who are Liberals, AND who know that Democrats control Congress. The 88% who disapprove of Congress would be the Obama supporters who think that Congress is controlled by Republicans, plus the Conservatives who know that Congress is controlled by Democrats, who have led us to the worst recession in decades, and possibly ever.

So, next time Republicans are portrayed as misinformed rednecks, ask yourself, How informed are those feeding me this information?

The Free Tickets Mentioned in my Previous Post Will "Break the Bank of DC."

2008-11-19T16:48:00.000-08:00

From The DC Examiner:

Soaring costs for inauguration could break the bank for D.C.

By Leah Fabel
Examiner Staff Writer 11/18/08

Soaring costs expected to accompany huge crowds in town for the Jan. 20 inauguration of Barack Obama could stick cash-strapped Washington, D.C., with a record-breaking bill for services.

Security and capacity measures recommended by the District’s congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and others will almost certainly surpass the $15 million the federal government gives to the District each year to defray the cost of events, Norton said.

In 2005, with an estimated 300,000 in attendance, the second inauguration of President Bush cost the city more than $17 million, some of which was reimbursed with federal funds. This year, officials estimate nearly five times that many people for the swearing in of President-elect Barack Obama.

Police Chief Cathy Lanier expects to use an additional 4,000 police officers from all over the country in addition to her 4,000-member force, she said earlier this month. The city’s inaugural budget allows for only 3,000 extra uniformed officers.

“There will be an additional amount necessary to handle the unprecedented crowds, and I am now working with my colleagues to deal with that amount,” Norton said, adding “it’s an outrage to have costs incurred for federal events.”

Norton recommended to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies the opening of private sites off the Mall, such as the Verizon Center and Nationals Park, to accommodate visitors without a ticket to the official events.

“There will not be even standing-room-only space on the Mall,” she said. “We have to throw away the old book on organizing the inauguration.”

Use of the Chinatown’s 23,000-seat Verizon Center could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to Tasha Rios, a contracts manager for Plano, Texas-based Women of Faith. Rios’ group used the facility in July for a more than 12,000-person conference.

Basic rent, she said, cost her organization about $200,000. But it varies by group size, she said, and does not include expenses for staff, security, medical services, insurance and add-ons like the use of giant display-screens that would be needed in the event of an inaugural broadcast.

So there it is. Because Congressional Democrats loathe capitalism, and see "buying" tickets to Obama's Inauguration unethical, the city of Washington D.C. will have to foot the bill. If only the people of Washington DC will see that this is just one of the problems associated with the Socialist mentality that they constantly support, then perhaps they will vote for someone who has some brains for once. I won't be holding my breath.

However, if the Obama campaign does not want to abandon their Socialist ideology for the sake of the Socialist capital of the USSA (Union of Socialist States of America) then perhaps they could practice what they preached but failed to practice in the campaign. They supported the redistribution of wealth, but the far wealthier Obama campaign did not redistribute any of their money to the McCain campaign. However, now that the campaign is over, perhaps they can redistribute the left over money to help finance the Inauguration. Again, I will not be holding my breath. Socialist are fine with the redistrabution of wealth, as long as it's someone else's wealth being redistributed.

Inauguration Tickets Not for Sale: Corruption Still for Sale

2008-11-12T14:34:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON – The senator overseeing Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony said Monday she's writing to Internet sites like eBay asking them not to sell scalped inauguration tickets. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also said she's crafting a bill that would make a federal crime of selling tickets to the historic event Jan. 20.

Feinstein, who chairs the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, said she foresees overwhelming demand for the 240,000 available tickets and has heard reports they may be sold for as much as $40,000 online.

The tickets are supposed to be free to the public and distributed through congressional offices.

Paying $40,000 for a ticket to see Obama sworn in for the Presidency does seem steep, but a Democrat and his money are easily parted. However, if that is what the free market demands of these tickets, then I don't see the problem with selling them. Admittedly, it is unethical for someone to pick a ticket up for "free" from a Congressional office, and then turn around and sell it. But, as Milton Friedman is famous for saying (although he says it was not him that coined the term) "there's no such thing as a free lunch." I doubt that anyone gets the tickets for "free." Instead, my guess is that they are traded for campaign donations. So what Feinstein objects to is not the selling of the tickets, but the selling of the tickets by private individuals on clear terms. Selling the tickets for campaign contributions is not a problem to the Senator, as she stands to make a handsome sum. If these tickets truly are worth $40,000, then why is the cash strapped government giving them away? Why does the government not put them on Ebay, and therefore offset some of the costs of the extravagant inauguration ceremonies we are bound to see? It seems that the only way the government thinks that it is ethical for them to make money is through compulsory taxation. Governments are the only institutions on Earth where it is unethical to make a profit through the voluntary activities of individuals, but totally ethical to take money at the point of a gun. This delusion will only get worse once Obama implemenst his Socialist policies. When I see the government offering something for "free," I always make it a point to ask, "What is the real cost?" The real cost almost always tends to be much higher than the cost of it would be if left to the free market.

What's Next for the GOP?

2008-11-10T14:44:00.000-08:00

One of the Democrats who I work with came into my office this weekend, with a smile of amusement on his face, saying that he had enjoyed watching all of the fighting amongst the Republicans. I responded that I, too, enjoyed the fighting within the Republican Party, and he was slightly taken aback. I explained to him that the Republican Party had lost its way, and that this intraparty bickering was bound to give the Republican Party some direction. I look at this as a prime opportunity for the true, Libertarian Conservative wing of the Republican Party to take control again. It will be good for the Party, and more importantly, it will be good for the United States.

With all that is at stake, however, there is some danger in the RINO wing of the Republican Party winning the battle, and going back to the same Republican Party that has lost the last two national election cycles. The media have already chosen their side in this battle. They know that the best hope for sustained modern liberal control of this country is in the victory of Republican moderates. The two sides of this battle are embodied in John McCain, and Sarah Palin. While Sarah Palin is a long way away from a true classical liberal conservative (no those two terms are not opposites) she, right now, is the closest thing to a Conservative we have on the national stage. John McCain has done just what was expected of him from the Main Stream Media, and that was losing the election. McCain will now become, once again, the token Republican media darling, while the Media will do all within its power to destroy Palin.

The MSM will try to convince us that the Obama victory, and McCain defeat, can be blamed on Sarah Palin. They will not mention that McCain was constantly behind in all national polls leading up to the election, with the exception of a couple of days after he nominated Sarah Palin, but before he said that the fundamentals of the American economy were strong. Sarah Palin gave McCain the boost he needed to pull ahead of Obama, but then McCain opened his big mouth, and blew it. In the aftermath, the MSM were able to use their tried and true method to attack Palin, which is to claim she is an idiot.

The method of labeling a conservative as stupid goes back several years. It is an attack that journalists learned on the school yard playground. When they lost an argument, they would respond, the way that most of us did when we were immature, by saying, "Oh yeah, well you're an idiot." Most of us have moved on from those types of arguments, but it has worked so well for the MSM, that they will never give it up.

It worked with Dan Quale. Old Danny boy was stupid enough to rely on the spelling of potato offered to him by the form that he was reading when administering a spelling bee. The MSM pointed out that he must have been stupid, but how many of us would end up spelling simple words incorrectly if all of a sudden, Microsoft Word started offering incorrect suggestions for words? I know I rely on MS Word's corrections quite a bit, but I do not believe that makes me an idiot.

Then there was George W. Bush. He was painted as an idiot throughout, and even before, his Presidency. The MSM never pointed out, that when he was running against Gore, it was Bush who had good grades in high school, and Gore who rarely got above a C in any subject other than art. They said that it was Bush who got into Yale because of his connections (his father was a US Representative involved in a failing Senate race when Bush was accepted) but did not mention anything about Gore's connections when he was accepted into an Ivy league school (Gore's father was a long serving US Senator when Gore was accepted to college.) When it was pointed out to liberals that Bush graduated Yale and Harvard Business School, they would say that anyone can graduate from those schools, because once you get in, the professors give you grades. It is only in small schools where you have to earn your grades.

Then along comes Sarah Palin, who did not go to an Ivy League school. The MSM must have, at that point, pointed out that she went to a school where she had to have real accomplishments in order to graduate, but no, they pointed out that she went to a small college, and was therefore an idiot. They were very careful not to attack McCain as being an idiot, as he was a moderate Republican, and they needed him to keep the Republicans in their losing ways, despite the fact that McCain graduated second to last in his class from the US Naval Academy.

I find it amusing to find Liberal blogs about how stupid Sarah Palin is, and then get onto their comment section, and mention that she is just as stupid as someone who would claim that the United States has 57 states (Obama) or that President Roosevelt was appearing on TV in 1929 before people had TV sets, and before FDR was President (Biden). It is amusing to watch them explain how that Democrats, being as infallible as the Pope, occasionally misspeak, but don't really think that what they say is true, but Palin, because she is stupid, really does believe the things she says when she misspeaks, which is what makes her stupid. While I am not the expert in stupidity that the MSM are, I find the circular reasoning that leftists offer to be a perfect case study in the art of stupidity.

Now I truly believe that there are people who are not too bright involved in national politics, but rather than relying on personal attacks to identify who is stupid, we should just examine their policies. If someone wants to return America to the state of limited government interference in the economy, which made the American economy the strongest on the face of the earth, then I think they may have some brains between their ears. If, however, the politician wants to implement the same government interferences in the economy that have failed throughout the history of the world, and thinks those policies will make people better off, then that person is probably an idiot. So when it is pointed out to Obama that every time the Capital Gains tax has been cut, it has resulted in more trading taking place, and therefore increased government revenues, and every time that it has been raised, it has resulted in fewer trades, and decreased government revenues; and Obama's response is that in the interest of fairness, the capital gains tax should be raised, that speaks volumes of Obama's mental capacity. When Obama says that in order to combat higher energy prices we need to tax oil companies, despite the fact that high school economics students learn that the price of a commodity is directly proportional to the cost of producing that commodity, including taxes, then it is a safe bet that Obama is a mental midget. When Obama supports a Socialized health care plan, despite the fact that socialized medicine has always led to longer waits and poorer quality care for those involved, then we can assume that Obama smoked some bad reefer as a youth.

The MSM, centered in the most liberal cities in America, are focused on creating leftist controlled government. While they are not bright enough to come up with new methods, they continue to use the same method that they have been using for years, which seems to work with a fair amount of the American public. (It has been so successful for the other side, I just tried it in the previous sentence.) It is up to us who can identify the technique to refuse to submit to it, and instead insist that we examine the policies associated with politicians, rather than the yellow journalistic tactics of personal smears.

Could McCain have beaten Obama?

2008-11-06T14:52:00.001-08:00

During the Republican Primary, someone came into my office saying that they supported Rudy Guilini as the best hope for the Republican Party. I told him that he was wrong, as Guilini was a moderate, and a moderate Republican could not win. Rudy Guilini was not John McCain. Their genetic makeup is different, but other than that, I think that they are identical. I cited the recent history of Republican Primaries, and the following general elections:

2004 - A "conservative" was nominated by the Repulicans, and Republicans won:
Bush was painted by the Mainstream media as a Conservative, who ran unopposed. Libertatian conservatives looked at the spend happy Bush, but some of us (myself included) turned a blind eye in the post 9/11 world, and accepted what the MSM said. We therefore were happy with his nomination, and supported him on the road to retake the White House. (I regret not calling out Bush earlier as not a true Conservative, but I have little doubt that a Kerry Presidency would have even been worse than the second Bush term.) Anyway, I am sure I am not the only one who relaxed on their principles in the aftermath of 9/11, and Bush was able to win based on that.

2000 - A "conservative" was nominated by the Republicans, and Republicans won: Bush and John McCain were the two viable Republican candidates. The MSM was painting McCain as the moderate who would be more appealing to the Independent voters in the general election. Conservative and Libertarian Republicans, remembering the huge slap in the face to First Amendment Rights, that McCain, along with Russ Fiengold put through Congress in the name of Campaign Finance Reform, rejected his candidacy. The Conservative won the Primary, and went on to win the general election.

1996 - A moderate was nominated by the Republicans, and the Republicans lost:
The 3 main contenders were fiscal conservative, Steve Forbes; libertarian Pat Buchanan; and moderate Bob Dole. The Republicans, convinced that a Moderate was the only one who could defeat Clinton, nominated Bob Dole. Only two years after Americans were so fed up with Bill Clinton that they elected the first Republican controlled Congress in 50 years, they reelected Clinton.

1992 - A moderate was nominated by the Republicans, and the Republicans lost:
George Bush (41) was the conservative in 1988, but after caving to the Democratic Congress on the issue of taxes, Americans saw him as the moderate that he was. (We will see GHWB go back and forth in this brief history, which is a good indication that America finally got him right in 1992 when we labeled him as a moderate.) He defeated the libertarian leaning Buchanan, and then lost the general election.

1988-Republicans nominated a "Conservative," and the Republicans won:
In 1988, George Bush was the VP to Ronald Reagan, and was therefore associated with the Reagan policies. People took that, despite his previous stances on issues, as meaning that he was a Conservative. He won the Nomination, and eventually the White House.

1984 - A true conservative was nominated by the Republicans, and the Republicans ended up winning in the biggest electoral landslide in history:
Reagan took 49 out of 50 states. He was Reagan. His name is synonymous with conservatism.

1980 - Republicans elected a conservative, and the Republicans won:
Reagan defeated the moderate George Bush, and saved the American economy from the failed socialist policies of the 60's and 70's.

So there is a brief history, showing the tendency. But part of the Science of Politics is not just identifying a pattern, but explaining it. I shall now prove the scientific validity of my point.

A sound political philosophy, when backed by someone with inconsistent policies, will ALWAYS lose to an unsound political philosophy, but backed by someone with consistent policies. The people will notice the inconsistency. They will think, "If capitalism is so good, then why do the people who support capitalism support the government buy out of banks?" Does the fact that people who claim to be capitalists support government buy outs of banks effect the validity of capitalism? Absolutely not. But people will see it that way. They will also see that people who believe that a certain percent of a persons annual income should be the property of government will also argue that a certain percentage of an individual's life should be spent working directly for the government*. That is consistent. Does it make the foundation of Authoritarianism sound? No, but that is how people will see it.

Another problem with nominating a moderate is the roll that undecideds play in the Presidential election. To understand the votes of undecided voters, one must first understand who an undecided voter is. An undecided voter is someone who only marginally follows the election, yet votes anyway. They don't devote a lot of time to studying the candidates, so they rely on those who do follow the process for their information. They will hear from their liberal friends how great the liberal candidate is, for this or that reason. They will hear from their conservative friends, that the Republican candidate is not a good choice, but is better than the liberal candidate. The undecided is bound to appreciate the optimism of the liberals more than the pessimism of the conservatives.

The inconsistency of the moderate candidate will also lead to them running a negative campaign, which will be frowned upon by the undecided voters. Sarah Palin's role in the 2008 election is a good example of this. Palin was the most popular Governor in the United States, and governed with a Conservative philosophy. However, she was running with a moderate, so she disagreed with him on the basic premise of his political philosophy. Therefore, she could not speak her own mind, and had to be controlled by McCain's people. This led, at first, to her sounding like an idiot, since her handlers could not anticipate every question she would be asked, and it later led to her being used as only an attack dog of the McCain campaign. McCain could not communicate a clear message to the voter either, because he has been all over the place, so he too, had to resort to negative attacks, rather than a clear message about what he would do in the White House.

The Democrats in recent history have been nominating leftist candidates for the Presidency. They have been candidates with a clear, albeit misguided, message to the American people. Between a clear, misguided message, and an unclear message, which may at its core stand on sound reasoning on the most important issues, the American people will always go with the clear, misguided message.

*Many of you are asking why I pointed out a case for a portion of an individual's life being enforced servitude to the government. Obama picked for his Chief of Staff (the one member of the Administration with a role to play on all policy matters), Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel wrote in his book, "John Kennedy was right: A nation is defined not by what it does for its citizens but by what it asks of them. If your leaders aren't challenging you to do your part, they aren't doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing for the first time an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. This is not a draft, nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common purpose." So if Obama wants everyone to work for the government for several months of the year indirectly through income tax, then it is no different from having them enslaved directly by their country in the form of "Community Service."