Last week I gave an example of the unevenness of coverage in the press towards Sarah Palin. I used this example simply to raise awareness of the role of the Free Press in our nation and the perils that would accompany a decline in this journalistic freedom.
I'll say it again, though, the Free Press is one of the many checks on the power of government. Without the Free Press, government can run rampant while the people sit idly by, unknowing. And, when government thrives, individual freedom cannot survive.
I happened to pick that example of Sarah Palin because it was so egregious. The interviewer flat out lied and purposefully misquoted another source in order to put her on the spot and make her look like an idiot. Now, whether or not she is an idiot is irrelevant. (But, for the record, you don't get to be the governor without some level of smarts; calling her an idiot is just useless hyperbole.)
If Obama or Biden or some other Democrat had been treated the same way, I could have used that as an example as well. (It is tougher to find such examples, though, so I took what I could get.)
The point is, our freedoms are being threatened, presently. And that threat is coming from a press that is giving up their freedom to put themselves in the tank for either Obama (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC) or for McCain (Fox). There are still objective journalists out there, but they are few and far between. Gone is the day, it seems, when you could open up your paper and find an in-depth, exhaustively researched piece on every element of a controversy involving any of the candidates, with that same level of scrutiny applied equally to all candidates.
This is the time to get very worried. When your Free Press starts letting you down, there is almost nothing left to stand between you and a government who would just love to feed you the information they want you to hear.
I highly recommend the following two commentaries. Both reinforce what I'm talking about here and speak of the dangers an impotent press poses to our freedoms and our Republic.
"Why the Press is in the Tank for Obama" by Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail
"Media's Presidential Bias and Decline" by Michael Malone of ABC News
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The downsides of all-access early voting
PajamasMedia has recently posted this piece that rails against universal access, no excuses early voting allowances that are more and more available.
Some of the points that are made could be argued away by saying that it is the responsibility of the individual voter to gather as much information as possible about the candidates in order to make a more informed decision, and that pretty much demands waiting until Election Day.
But this practice certainly opens up opportunities for any candidate or party to game the system to their advantage. Our democratic elections are too sacred and valuable to mess with. I agree with the author: Early voting has to go.
Some of the points that are made could be argued away by saying that it is the responsibility of the individual voter to gather as much information as possible about the candidates in order to make a more informed decision, and that pretty much demands waiting until Election Day.
But this practice certainly opens up opportunities for any candidate or party to game the system to their advantage. Our democratic elections are too sacred and valuable to mess with. I agree with the author: Early voting has to go.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Aren't government rebates the same as tax cuts?
I'll keep this post short. I was reading the other day about what some folks in Congress see as a need for another stimulus package to help pull the economy out of the current stall.
The last stimulus package cost the government $130 billion. I got my $1800 cut of that (or whatever it was). This time, they're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $300+ billion.
Now, I'm all in favor of a stimulus package. That is to say, I'm in favor of getting back some of the money I forfeited in taxes (I'm not really in favor of that in the form of stimulus packages). But I have to wonder why the very lawmakers who are in favor of raising taxes see a potential economic benefit in a tax rebate?
If taxes were kept lower in the first place, wouldn't the impact be the same? Wouldn't the economy be healthier in the long term?
If I had to speculate as why (and I suppose I do have to as this is my blog) this logic escapes our elected officials, I would say it is essentially two-fold: (1) It is much harder to measure the impact of something like low taxes in the long term, and attribute long-term economic growth to that in particular. It is easier to show a definite cause and effect with a stimulus package and what happens in the economy 3-6 months later. (2) Stimulus packages give lawmakers the ability to "save the day" with their legislation crafted for the good of the people. Of course, if this is the case, it's really all for the good of those in power, isn't it?
The last stimulus package cost the government $130 billion. I got my $1800 cut of that (or whatever it was). This time, they're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $300+ billion.
Now, I'm all in favor of a stimulus package. That is to say, I'm in favor of getting back some of the money I forfeited in taxes (I'm not really in favor of that in the form of stimulus packages). But I have to wonder why the very lawmakers who are in favor of raising taxes see a potential economic benefit in a tax rebate?
If taxes were kept lower in the first place, wouldn't the impact be the same? Wouldn't the economy be healthier in the long term?
If I had to speculate as why (and I suppose I do have to as this is my blog) this logic escapes our elected officials, I would say it is essentially two-fold: (1) It is much harder to measure the impact of something like low taxes in the long term, and attribute long-term economic growth to that in particular. It is easier to show a definite cause and effect with a stimulus package and what happens in the economy 3-6 months later. (2) Stimulus packages give lawmakers the ability to "save the day" with their legislation crafted for the good of the people. Of course, if this is the case, it's really all for the good of those in power, isn't it?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Do you have a 401(k)? Not for long. Read this...
The House of Representatives, on October 7, heard testimony that called for the elimination of the 401(k) program, in favor of government-run retirement accounts. If this doesn't scare the living shit out of you, I'm not sure what will.
30 years ago, when my dad was working "in the system," he worked towards a retirement from his employer. It was common for one person to stay employed with the same company for an entire 40-year career. At the end of that career, that person would have earned themselves a nice, monthly retirement income, paid out of the pension plan that their employer had built up for them over the course of several decades.
With the amending of Section 401(k) to the Internal Revenue Code, in 1978, it became very attractive for people to start putting money into this account due to certain fringe flexibilities that it offered over the IRA. It also became very attractive to companies who were paying large administrative costs to maintain their own defined benefit plans (pension plans). Companies saw the 401(k) as an opportunity to shift the burden of retirement to the employee, and over the past 30 years that's just what they've been doing. It is very difficult to find, outside of government, a defined benefit retirement plan offered by an employer; most employers now expect their employees to be responsible for their own retirement.
(One interesting tidbit...The very names of the plans hints at the true reason for this shift. Defined benefit plans imply that some entity (the employer) is responsible for providing a benefit (retirement pay). Defined contribution plans imply that the worker is responsible for the contributions towards retirement. A shift of burden.)
Wall Street also loved the idea of a new account type that the masses would flood to, that they could charge administrative fees for.
Chances are you have a 401(k) currently, and chances are that you have a few thousand dollars in it already. Chances are, also, that you are using your 401(k), and the pre-tax benefits it provides, as your primary vehicle to help build your nest egg for retirement.
Well, now, there are people in your government that might like to see your 401(k) plan go away. On October 7, in a session of the House Education and Labor Committee, one Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research proposed the elimination of all current tax incentives for defined contribution plans. She also called for the replacement of 401(k)s with a universal government program providing a fixed per-capita government contribution. As part of this, she said, the government would allow all current 401(k) balances to be moved to the government for placement in newly issued bonds to assure the safety of retirement income streams.
She also offered this reassurance:
Well, maybe some, but not all. Read on to see the comments of one particular elected official:
Denis Kucinich (D-OH): "What do we say to all Americans who are the threshold of retirement, about what the government can do? What should we be doing to try and salvage the retirement position of American workers? What kind of legislative action should we be taking now?"
Teresa Ghilarducci (Panelist): "I propose that you offer up to 401(k) asset holders now a 'swap-out' of their toxic assets for a government guarantee. So you do for them what you've done for the banks."
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "I'm ready with the legislation, Mr. Chairman."
Kucinich and others are ready with a hair trigger to legislate to "protect" the American people from the downside of investing. This may be one of several threats to the upside potential that we now take for granted in owning our own investments. When lawmakers whip out that pen and the dollars, be afraid.
30 years ago, when my dad was working "in the system," he worked towards a retirement from his employer. It was common for one person to stay employed with the same company for an entire 40-year career. At the end of that career, that person would have earned themselves a nice, monthly retirement income, paid out of the pension plan that their employer had built up for them over the course of several decades.
With the amending of Section 401(k) to the Internal Revenue Code, in 1978, it became very attractive for people to start putting money into this account due to certain fringe flexibilities that it offered over the IRA. It also became very attractive to companies who were paying large administrative costs to maintain their own defined benefit plans (pension plans). Companies saw the 401(k) as an opportunity to shift the burden of retirement to the employee, and over the past 30 years that's just what they've been doing. It is very difficult to find, outside of government, a defined benefit retirement plan offered by an employer; most employers now expect their employees to be responsible for their own retirement.
(One interesting tidbit...The very names of the plans hints at the true reason for this shift. Defined benefit plans imply that some entity (the employer) is responsible for providing a benefit (retirement pay). Defined contribution plans imply that the worker is responsible for the contributions towards retirement. A shift of burden.)
Wall Street also loved the idea of a new account type that the masses would flood to, that they could charge administrative fees for.
Chances are you have a 401(k) currently, and chances are that you have a few thousand dollars in it already. Chances are, also, that you are using your 401(k), and the pre-tax benefits it provides, as your primary vehicle to help build your nest egg for retirement.
Well, now, there are people in your government that might like to see your 401(k) plan go away. On October 7, in a session of the House Education and Labor Committee, one Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School for Social Research proposed the elimination of all current tax incentives for defined contribution plans. She also called for the replacement of 401(k)s with a universal government program providing a fixed per-capita government contribution. As part of this, she said, the government would allow all current 401(k) balances to be moved to the government for placement in newly issued bonds to assure the safety of retirement income streams.
She also offered this reassurance:
"[A] guaranteed income from [the retiree's] former 401(k) removes a source of financial anxiety – and this is not trivial – it ends fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.How did your elected Representatives respond to this? Surely, they were livid at the idea of a government-run retirement program! (Or should I say another?) Surely, in this land of opportunity and self-reliance, the Representatives of the people would fight against the government takeover of your private pension plans!
"I propose you treat 401(k) asset accounts like the banks, and take some of those toxic assets away from workers and give them a vehicle so they know they can get a guaranteed retirement on top of social security.
"401(k)s are too risky and it's not good policy to have workers run their own their own retirement plan. They want government help and they also want to be responsible."
Well, maybe some, but not all. Read on to see the comments of one particular elected official:
Denis Kucinich (D-OH): "What do we say to all Americans who are the threshold of retirement, about what the government can do? What should we be doing to try and salvage the retirement position of American workers? What kind of legislative action should we be taking now?"
Teresa Ghilarducci (Panelist): "I propose that you offer up to 401(k) asset holders now a 'swap-out' of their toxic assets for a government guarantee. So you do for them what you've done for the banks."
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "I'm ready with the legislation, Mr. Chairman."
Kucinich and others are ready with a hair trigger to legislate to "protect" the American people from the downside of investing. This may be one of several threats to the upside potential that we now take for granted in owning our own investments. When lawmakers whip out that pen and the dollars, be afraid.
Is Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, or all of the above?
Watch the video for yourself. In an interview with Drew Griffin on CNN, Palin was asked the following:
Who was the author? It was Byron York, and he confessed to it too. But read for yourselves his "confession." Read for yourselves the context in which he wrote that. It was obviously not meant as direct criticism towards Palin, but, rather, a reflection of the unbalanced criticism she's been facing, both personally and politically, at the hands of the media in this campaign.
CNN, by the way, has declined to make a retraction or correction here, or even to clarify what was obviously taken far out of context.
Folks, I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. When you see this example of journalistic incompetence coming out of your Free Press, you should be outraged. If we can't get unbiased reporting, free of propaganda and focused on the truth, we're dead as a nation. The Free Press is one of the checks on government power. When you can't trust it, government thrives. When government thrives, freedom dies.
GRIFFIN: Governor, you've been mocked in the press, the press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well. The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.Palin was obviously blindsided at being thrown under the proverbial bus by the conservative press. But was this accurately portrayed? Or another case of media bias?PALIN: Who wrote that one? Who wrote it.
GRIFFIN: That was in the National Review. I don't have the author.
Who was the author? It was Byron York, and he confessed to it too. But read for yourselves his "confession." Read for yourselves the context in which he wrote that. It was obviously not meant as direct criticism towards Palin, but, rather, a reflection of the unbalanced criticism she's been facing, both personally and politically, at the hands of the media in this campaign.
CNN, by the way, has declined to make a retraction or correction here, or even to clarify what was obviously taken far out of context.
Folks, I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. When you see this example of journalistic incompetence coming out of your Free Press, you should be outraged. If we can't get unbiased reporting, free of propaganda and focused on the truth, we're dead as a nation. The Free Press is one of the checks on government power. When you can't trust it, government thrives. When government thrives, freedom dies.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama and those "preconditions"...what is the truth?
In each of the three presidential debates, McCain attacked Obama for claiming that he'd meet with leaders of hostile nations "without precondition." Obama maintains he didn't say that. I'm not about to take either of these guy's words for truth, so I finally did some digging. I had to know if Obama really said that. Here is what I found. (I'll do my best to preserve context, but of course, for the full context, click through to the transcripts.)
First, McCain's accusations, and Obama's responses (or lack of sometimes)...
September 26, 2008:
MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition.
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition.
There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.
MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
OBAMA: Of course not.
Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.
MCCAIN: And I guarantee you [Henry Kissinger] would not -- he would not say that presidential top level [talks should take place].
OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.
October 2, 2008: (Veep debate)
PALIN: [T]hose who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do.
BIDEN: That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.
October 7, 2008:
MCCAIN: Now, Senator Obama without precondition wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions. That's what he stated, again, a matter of record.
OBAMA: [Did not respond directly.] Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.
October 15, 2008:
MCCAIN: Senator Obama...wants to sit down across the table without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.
OBAMA: [No direct response.]
So what's the truth here? Let's investigate some of Obama's own words, on the record at various points in his campaign.
The controversy begins when Obama is asked a question during the CNN/YouTube debate, in July 2007. I've managed to find the transcript of that debate.
QUESTIONER: [W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
HARRY SMITH: You said, "I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc."
First, McCain's accusations, and Obama's responses (or lack of sometimes)...
September 26, 2008:
MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition.
OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition.
There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.
MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
OBAMA: Of course not.
Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.
MCCAIN: And I guarantee you [Henry Kissinger] would not -- he would not say that presidential top level [talks should take place].
OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.
October 2, 2008: (Veep debate)
PALIN: [T]hose who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do.
BIDEN: That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad.
October 7, 2008:
MCCAIN: Now, Senator Obama without precondition wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions. That's what he stated, again, a matter of record.
OBAMA: [Did not respond directly.] Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.
October 15, 2008:
MCCAIN: Senator Obama...wants to sit down across the table without precondition to -- with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.
OBAMA: [No direct response.]
So what's the truth here? Let's investigate some of Obama's own words, on the record at various points in his campaign.
The controversy begins when Obama is asked a question during the CNN/YouTube debate, in July 2007. I've managed to find the transcript of that debate.
QUESTIONER: [W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
September 2007: (Press conference)
QUESTION: Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad. Would you still meet with him today?
OBAMA: Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries.
Then, October 15, 2007, in an interview with CBS' Harry Smith, Obama reiterated his intent:HARRY SMITH: You said, "I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc."
OBAMA: Exactly, and without preconditions.
February 4, 2008: (CNN Situation Room)
OBAMA: There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions.
Even Obama's own website says (or at least used to) "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Clearly, Obama meant what he said and he said what he meant. He would engage, at a presidential level, with the leaders of those nations who are right now enemies to the United States, and without precondition. To say he meant something different is just his engaging in typical politician doublespeak.
That about settles it for me.
(One more good link for you...A blog post from The Atlantic.)
Oh crap, am I a racist?
In this post a few days ago, I labeled Obama as a socialist. I had no idea that "Socialist" is really a code word for "black." I guess this word is on the no-no list, like "community organizer," which, at least to one person, is a code word for "black." But I guess that only counts when Republicans use it, because it is a "Republican code word." Does that mean that my calling him a socialist is only racist because I'm a Republican? Oh wait, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian, mainly, and somewhat of a Constitutionalist...but actually more of a Conservative than a Republican. Does this mean I'm not a racist? Maybe I'm only, like, 10% (which is still unacceptable).
Or is it just because I'm anti-Obama? There are Obama supporters out ther in the blogosphere who say, directly, that because I'm a middle-class white person who's not for Obama, then I must be a racist. But if I were a middle-class black person who was against Obama (they're out there), would I be a racist? Can one be racist against his or her own race? I'm confused...
Who sets these rules? Is there a guidebook? I certainly don't want to be a racist, but I didn't realize I actually might be. Dammit! If there's a guidebook, I can find out what I can say against Obama without being seen as a racist. Is there anything?
I wish Martin Luther King Jr. were still around to bring a higher level of class and sensibility instead of this crap. Bloody hell, I'm white, can I invoke MLK?
Or is it just because I'm anti-Obama? There are Obama supporters out ther in the blogosphere who say, directly, that because I'm a middle-class white person who's not for Obama, then I must be a racist. But if I were a middle-class black person who was against Obama (they're out there), would I be a racist? Can one be racist against his or her own race? I'm confused...
Who sets these rules? Is there a guidebook? I certainly don't want to be a racist, but I didn't realize I actually might be. Dammit! If there's a guidebook, I can find out what I can say against Obama without being seen as a racist. Is there anything?
I wish Martin Luther King Jr. were still around to bring a higher level of class and sensibility instead of this crap. Bloody hell, I'm white, can I invoke MLK?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
When government intervenes, your opportunity is lost
Below is a link to an absolutely terrific interview of economist Russel Roberts. Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is the interviewer.
Roberts describes himself as a "classical liberal" in terms of economic position. That is he believes in "limited government and personal responsibility." The whole theme of the interview is that government has caused this current financial crisis through its micromanagement of the housing market, and is further screwing it up through its taxpayer-financed "solutions."
Of particular note, when Steigerwald asks him who will end up having to pay for this, Roberts replies:
This reminds me of the comment of a young man that I heard on the radio the other day. He said "I'd like to see the government do more to stabilize the stock market."
Folks, when the government comes in and starts eliminating risk, your opportunity is also eliminated. Be very careful how much you look to government for long-term solutions to your acute financial problems.
Read on and learn...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_593861.html
Roberts describes himself as a "classical liberal" in terms of economic position. That is he believes in "limited government and personal responsibility." The whole theme of the interview is that government has caused this current financial crisis through its micromanagement of the housing market, and is further screwing it up through its taxpayer-financed "solutions."
Of particular note, when Steigerwald asks him who will end up having to pay for this, Roberts replies:
"Your children and mine. Not in the form of debt, which is the standard answer, although they'll pay for that too. But the real cost is, to me, that we will lose the goose that lays the golden eggs -- which is our unbelievably flexible and powerful financial system."How will it be lost? Through increased centralized control of the markets.
This reminds me of the comment of a young man that I heard on the radio the other day. He said "I'd like to see the government do more to stabilize the stock market."
Folks, when the government comes in and starts eliminating risk, your opportunity is also eliminated. Be very careful how much you look to government for long-term solutions to your acute financial problems.
Read on and learn...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_593861.html
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Obama, you had them at "Change"
The final scene in the movie "Jerry McGuire" puts a repentant Tom Cruise in his living room with his on-screen wife, Rene Zellweger, explaining why he was wrong to leave her and why they should be together. He starts off by saying "Hello," and proceeds to give his observations of love and the world and how they tie together. She tells him to shut up, then says "You had me at 'Hello.'" They kiss and all is well with the McGuires.
It would have really sucked, though, if she didn't have the sense to actually listen to what he said after "Hello" and he had actually said something like "...I forgot my toothbrush." She would have felt pretty stupid trying to kiss him as he made a beeline for the bathroom.
It seems to me that many of Barack Obama's supporters are like Rene Z and have stopped listening to Obama ever since he uttered the "Change" mantra.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for change, and believe that it's long overdue in the halls of our government. Members of both parties have shown evidence of being corrupted absolutely by their absolute power. It seems that all politicians these days really have one goal: To win the next election. To that end, they don't...nay...can't have the best interests of their constituents in mind as they legislate. They gerrymander to minimize competition. They fear truth-telling because they know that it could provide fodder for a competitor's campaign ads in the next race. They change their positions for political expediency.
While I, too, feel the need for change, Obama is not the candidate to deliver it, and maybe 2008 is not the year for it to be delivered.
Why is Obama not the one? His ideas of change cut into the core of what this country has been about for the past 200+ years; they are downright dangerous to our Republic and your freedom. I'm not talking about his ideas on equal rights, or other discrete issues. I'm talking about his ideas on the size and role of government, his ideas on personal liberty, his ideas on the individual and society.
When it comes down to it, Obama feels that individual ambitions should be subservient to the collective needs of society. He feels that government should play a key role in directing the human resources of the country to address the needs of the society at large.
Obviously, he doesn't come right out and say this, and to be honest, I'm not sure if he even realizes exactly where the path he wants to take us on ends. When I listen to him speak, I really believe that he has the best interests of the American people at heart, and I believe that is what motivates him. I'm sure he thinks he has the solution to our woes.
I'm not going to spend a whole lot of keystrokes demonstrating to you that Obamas ideas boil down to simple socialism; there are plenty of other writers out there who have done that. (In fact, many of his supporters will even admit that it is socialism that he is after. I have seen many apologetic comments made by them, saying "hey, socialism isn't communism," as if to say "nothing to fear here.")
Rather, I want to try to convince you, in a few short paragraphs, why socialism isn't where this country ought to go.
Our Constitution is rather unique in all of the governments in history. It is succinct, and based around two basic concepts:
Do you know why they are not rights given to us by our forefathers? Because our forefathers understood that whoever gives the right has control over how that right is exercised. Government control of this much of a person's life would be in direct conflict with the tone of individualism that frames our Constitution.
Take health care. Obama wants to establish a national health care system whereby the care is financed by the government. This is just fine until you consider that a health care plan offered by the government cannot possibly provide the breadth of options that an open marketplace of private insurers can. What does this mean for you? You're stuck with the options they give you. Your freedom to choose has now been curtailed. Of course, this is all being done for the benefit of the society as a whole. So where you sacrifice, others gain. You say you'd like an MRI for some shoulder pain you've been having? Sorry, the state doesn't think you really need that. Oh, and if you try to go and pay for it yourself, you'll be penalized for consuming resources that need to be used for the other, more needy members of society, as determined by the beauracracy.
Again, Obama won't tell you that this will be the eventual result. But such micromanagement and intrusiveness is the only possible result of a government that is trying to decide how limited resources (health care, in this case) can be used to serve society as a whole.
You want to go to medical school and be a neurosurgeon? Sorry, the government already has enough of those. But, you can be a pediatrician or an optomitrist, there aren't enough of those to fill the needs of society in the coming years.
There is no exception: More government is always harmful to the people. This may not be immediately obvious, but socialism is at the bottom of a very slippery slope. Under socialism, you can kiss your individual rights and ambitions goodbye. Your life becomes part of the collective and your choices are limited by the needs of the collective.
You don't get much more un-American than that. But that is the story that comes with an Obama presidency. Are you still listening? Or did he have you at "Change?"
It would have really sucked, though, if she didn't have the sense to actually listen to what he said after "Hello" and he had actually said something like "...I forgot my toothbrush." She would have felt pretty stupid trying to kiss him as he made a beeline for the bathroom.
It seems to me that many of Barack Obama's supporters are like Rene Z and have stopped listening to Obama ever since he uttered the "Change" mantra.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for change, and believe that it's long overdue in the halls of our government. Members of both parties have shown evidence of being corrupted absolutely by their absolute power. It seems that all politicians these days really have one goal: To win the next election. To that end, they don't...nay...can't have the best interests of their constituents in mind as they legislate. They gerrymander to minimize competition. They fear truth-telling because they know that it could provide fodder for a competitor's campaign ads in the next race. They change their positions for political expediency.
While I, too, feel the need for change, Obama is not the candidate to deliver it, and maybe 2008 is not the year for it to be delivered.
Why is Obama not the one? His ideas of change cut into the core of what this country has been about for the past 200+ years; they are downright dangerous to our Republic and your freedom. I'm not talking about his ideas on equal rights, or other discrete issues. I'm talking about his ideas on the size and role of government, his ideas on personal liberty, his ideas on the individual and society.
When it comes down to it, Obama feels that individual ambitions should be subservient to the collective needs of society. He feels that government should play a key role in directing the human resources of the country to address the needs of the society at large.
Obviously, he doesn't come right out and say this, and to be honest, I'm not sure if he even realizes exactly where the path he wants to take us on ends. When I listen to him speak, I really believe that he has the best interests of the American people at heart, and I believe that is what motivates him. I'm sure he thinks he has the solution to our woes.
I'm not going to spend a whole lot of keystrokes demonstrating to you that Obamas ideas boil down to simple socialism; there are plenty of other writers out there who have done that. (In fact, many of his supporters will even admit that it is socialism that he is after. I have seen many apologetic comments made by them, saying "hey, socialism isn't communism," as if to say "nothing to fear here.")
Rather, I want to try to convince you, in a few short paragraphs, why socialism isn't where this country ought to go.
Our Constitution is rather unique in all of the governments in history. It is succinct, and based around two basic concepts:
- There are certain freedoms (rights) that all people are given. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are given not by government, but by their Creator (that is to say, they are just there). These basic rights provide for everything needed for a person to live and succeed in their life. These rights are, at their core, passionately individualistic.
- Government is inherently corrupt and will try, however possible, to gain more power. Our forefathers were very distrustful of a powerful central government, and that is why the bulk of the Constitution was written in an effort to limit the ability of government to become more powerful. That is why there are three distinct branches of government and why those each of these branches are established so as to keep the others in check.
Do you know why they are not rights given to us by our forefathers? Because our forefathers understood that whoever gives the right has control over how that right is exercised. Government control of this much of a person's life would be in direct conflict with the tone of individualism that frames our Constitution.
Take health care. Obama wants to establish a national health care system whereby the care is financed by the government. This is just fine until you consider that a health care plan offered by the government cannot possibly provide the breadth of options that an open marketplace of private insurers can. What does this mean for you? You're stuck with the options they give you. Your freedom to choose has now been curtailed. Of course, this is all being done for the benefit of the society as a whole. So where you sacrifice, others gain. You say you'd like an MRI for some shoulder pain you've been having? Sorry, the state doesn't think you really need that. Oh, and if you try to go and pay for it yourself, you'll be penalized for consuming resources that need to be used for the other, more needy members of society, as determined by the beauracracy.
Again, Obama won't tell you that this will be the eventual result. But such micromanagement and intrusiveness is the only possible result of a government that is trying to decide how limited resources (health care, in this case) can be used to serve society as a whole.
You want to go to medical school and be a neurosurgeon? Sorry, the government already has enough of those. But, you can be a pediatrician or an optomitrist, there aren't enough of those to fill the needs of society in the coming years.
There is no exception: More government is always harmful to the people. This may not be immediately obvious, but socialism is at the bottom of a very slippery slope. Under socialism, you can kiss your individual rights and ambitions goodbye. Your life becomes part of the collective and your choices are limited by the needs of the collective.
You don't get much more un-American than that. But that is the story that comes with an Obama presidency. Are you still listening? Or did he have you at "Change?"
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sir Barack of Loxley
Everyone knows that Robin Hood "steals from the rich to give to the poor." This notion is quite heroic at the surface, if you're not one of the "rich." The heroism, or morality, of this particular form of "redistribution of wealth" only survives a deeper inspection, though, when examined in the proper context.
The basic story is this: Robin Hood was a loyal subject of King Richard the Lionheart, who ran a just and equitable kingdom. When King Richard went off to fight in the Crusades, he left his despotic brother, Prince John, in power. John oppressed, repressed, and depressed the people of Nottinghamshire ruthlessly, taxing the bloody hell out of them to finance his own excesses. Well, Robin Hood wouldn't stand for such injustice, so he began his own crusade, to take from the cronies of Prince John and give back to the robbed poor.
Noble indeed, especially given the conditions in Nottinghamshire at the time. But what about the modern-day Robin Hood? No, I'm not talking about the Dukes of Hazzard. I'm talking about Barack Obama.
There has been much ado, lately, on the Right regarding Obama's comment that he thinks "spread[ing] the wealth around [is] good for everybody." This prompted a comparison to Robin Hood that I heard on the radio today. Unfortunately, the suggested morality of the comparison, if such was the intent, is unfounded.
It's pretty clear, from Obama's populist theme, that he is all for a legislated wealth redistribution. Obama would finally punish those evil Big Oil companies who dare make a profit (how dare they!) while providing the goods and services that the public demands. He'd raise their taxes (by eliminating some of the exploration incentives that exist today) and impose a "windfall profits tax" on them, if they made money above some obscure threshold. Nevermind that they already pay multiples of their profit in the form of taxes today. (While Exxon Mobil, for example, made over $11 billion in profits in their second quarter 2008, they paid over $32 billion in taxes in the same quarter.)
Obama would eliminate the tax breaks that the highest income bracket enjoys today, and have been enjoying since Bush passed his tax reform following the dot-com bust. In fact, Obama states that he would reduce taxes for 95% of the population...increasing them for only the top 5% of wage earners. Well, the bottom 20% of wage earners don't even pay any tax to begin with, so they would actually be getting a check from the government every single year.
Further, Obama has highlighted that he would like to see a regulation of executive pay in private enterprise. The idea, obviously, is that if CEOs and other execs are making less, that's more available to the worker bee.
Barack Obama wants to take from Peter to pay Paul. If this were 12th century England, and Prince John was in power, this might be dignified. Peter would be some wealthy bastard of a noble who was living large off of Paul's toil and labor. But this is not 12th century England. This is the United States of America, where Peter has raised himself to his position of wealth through his own ingenuity, toil and labor. Peter has stolen from no one. So why should Paul get his money? The freedoms and liberties granted in America to succeed (of fail) at one's own choosing do not provide even a hint of the context necessary to justify what Obama would like to do to the men and women who support this country through their hard work and sacrifice.
Barack Obama is no modern day Robin Hood.
The basic story is this: Robin Hood was a loyal subject of King Richard the Lionheart, who ran a just and equitable kingdom. When King Richard went off to fight in the Crusades, he left his despotic brother, Prince John, in power. John oppressed, repressed, and depressed the people of Nottinghamshire ruthlessly, taxing the bloody hell out of them to finance his own excesses. Well, Robin Hood wouldn't stand for such injustice, so he began his own crusade, to take from the cronies of Prince John and give back to the robbed poor.
Noble indeed, especially given the conditions in Nottinghamshire at the time. But what about the modern-day Robin Hood? No, I'm not talking about the Dukes of Hazzard. I'm talking about Barack Obama.
There has been much ado, lately, on the Right regarding Obama's comment that he thinks "spread[ing] the wealth around [is] good for everybody." This prompted a comparison to Robin Hood that I heard on the radio today. Unfortunately, the suggested morality of the comparison, if such was the intent, is unfounded.
It's pretty clear, from Obama's populist theme, that he is all for a legislated wealth redistribution. Obama would finally punish those evil Big Oil companies who dare make a profit (how dare they!) while providing the goods and services that the public demands. He'd raise their taxes (by eliminating some of the exploration incentives that exist today) and impose a "windfall profits tax" on them, if they made money above some obscure threshold. Nevermind that they already pay multiples of their profit in the form of taxes today. (While Exxon Mobil, for example, made over $11 billion in profits in their second quarter 2008, they paid over $32 billion in taxes in the same quarter.)
Obama would eliminate the tax breaks that the highest income bracket enjoys today, and have been enjoying since Bush passed his tax reform following the dot-com bust. In fact, Obama states that he would reduce taxes for 95% of the population...increasing them for only the top 5% of wage earners. Well, the bottom 20% of wage earners don't even pay any tax to begin with, so they would actually be getting a check from the government every single year.
Further, Obama has highlighted that he would like to see a regulation of executive pay in private enterprise. The idea, obviously, is that if CEOs and other execs are making less, that's more available to the worker bee.
Barack Obama wants to take from Peter to pay Paul. If this were 12th century England, and Prince John was in power, this might be dignified. Peter would be some wealthy bastard of a noble who was living large off of Paul's toil and labor. But this is not 12th century England. This is the United States of America, where Peter has raised himself to his position of wealth through his own ingenuity, toil and labor. Peter has stolen from no one. So why should Paul get his money? The freedoms and liberties granted in America to succeed (of fail) at one's own choosing do not provide even a hint of the context necessary to justify what Obama would like to do to the men and women who support this country through their hard work and sacrifice.
Barack Obama is no modern day Robin Hood.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
No, John! NO!
There was only one thing scarier in last night's presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama than Obama's assertion that "healthcare is a right." That scarier thing was McCain's proposal that the federal government should bail out homeowners stuck with "bad mortgages."
McCain must have been really itching to get this idea out there, because he wasted no time waiting. Of course, the first question from the town hall audience pretty much set him up for it.
The question, coming from one Alan Schaffer, typified the "what can my government do for me" attitude that is plaguing the American citizenry of today. He asked: "With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?"
First of all, the government should have no responsibility whatsoever to bail people out of their economic hardships, but that is a topic for another post.
McCain's response is what I really want to talk about here. With a totally straight face, McCain uttered the following two sentences in the same answer:
"As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
"We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today."
What is this guy smoking? The McCain camp, today, issued more details on his masterful plan which includes the price tag of $300,000,000,000 (that's 11 zeroes). Sure, compared with the recent $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, $300B is pretty affordable. But when you think about it, the costs are outstanding.
Unlike the $700B "bailout" package, which would allow for the eventual sale of toxic securities in order to reduce the final cost of the legislation, McCain's plan is pretty much taking taxpayer money and throwing it away. Imagine you live in greater San Jose, CA. You outbid 14 other potential buyers for the right to buy your 1500 square foot house for $950,000. Two years later, you find yourself with a $950,000 mortgage on a house that's only worth $800,000 today. You are 150 Gs in the hole, and feeling down. Wait! Here comes Uncle Sam to get you a new mortgage for $800,000, essentially paying you $150,000 with the funds provided by your fellow Americans' taxes. Taxpayers will never see that money again, but you'll feel "secure" and be able to keep living the Dream.
Further, this would require the national debt ceiling to be raised once again. As part of EESA2008, that ceiling was raised to $11.4 Trillion. This would mean it would go up to $11.7T. And, despite what McCain says about raising taxes being the absolute worst thing a government could do in a down economy (and he's right), there would be no choice but to raise taxes.
So what was he thinking? With under 30 days left until E-Day, and Obama still ahead in the polls by 3-5%, McCain seems to be getting a little desperate. I think he's hoping that he can pander to the American public who are hungry for a Big Brother rescue and steal some votes from Obama, who has had a pretty good lock on the Take From Peter To Pay Paul story.
While he may have taken some of the Independent or Undecided votes with this plan, he's sure to have sacrificed many more of the Conservative votes, including mine. Congratulations John, you just lost the election.
McCain must have been really itching to get this idea out there, because he wasted no time waiting. Of course, the first question from the town hall audience pretty much set him up for it.
The question, coming from one Alan Schaffer, typified the "what can my government do for me" attitude that is plaguing the American citizenry of today. He asked: "With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?"
First of all, the government should have no responsibility whatsoever to bail people out of their economic hardships, but that is a topic for another post.
McCain's response is what I really want to talk about here. With a totally straight face, McCain uttered the following two sentences in the same answer:
"As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
"We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today."
What is this guy smoking? The McCain camp, today, issued more details on his masterful plan which includes the price tag of $300,000,000,000 (that's 11 zeroes). Sure, compared with the recent $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, $300B is pretty affordable. But when you think about it, the costs are outstanding.
Unlike the $700B "bailout" package, which would allow for the eventual sale of toxic securities in order to reduce the final cost of the legislation, McCain's plan is pretty much taking taxpayer money and throwing it away. Imagine you live in greater San Jose, CA. You outbid 14 other potential buyers for the right to buy your 1500 square foot house for $950,000. Two years later, you find yourself with a $950,000 mortgage on a house that's only worth $800,000 today. You are 150 Gs in the hole, and feeling down. Wait! Here comes Uncle Sam to get you a new mortgage for $800,000, essentially paying you $150,000 with the funds provided by your fellow Americans' taxes. Taxpayers will never see that money again, but you'll feel "secure" and be able to keep living the Dream.
Further, this would require the national debt ceiling to be raised once again. As part of EESA2008, that ceiling was raised to $11.4 Trillion. This would mean it would go up to $11.7T. And, despite what McCain says about raising taxes being the absolute worst thing a government could do in a down economy (and he's right), there would be no choice but to raise taxes.
So what was he thinking? With under 30 days left until E-Day, and Obama still ahead in the polls by 3-5%, McCain seems to be getting a little desperate. I think he's hoping that he can pander to the American public who are hungry for a Big Brother rescue and steal some votes from Obama, who has had a pretty good lock on the Take From Peter To Pay Paul story.
While he may have taken some of the Independent or Undecided votes with this plan, he's sure to have sacrificed many more of the Conservative votes, including mine. Congratulations John, you just lost the election.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Whose American Dream?
"...and that way, Americans...can realize the American Dream and stay in their home."
Thus spake John McCain, Republican presidential nominee, during the second presidential debate. Since when did the American Dream become owning a home? McCain and Republicans aren't the only ones who make this equivalence; Democrats do it too. Actually, ask anyone out there what the American Dream is, and they'll probably tell you that it is home ownership.
It's not my dream. I've got a home, but my dreams aren't fulfilled. If you own your home, you may feel the same.
What is my dream? The same thing it's been since I was in grade school. I'd build a big house with a padded bounce room and a bedroom with a slide from the window to the pool.
What is your dream? Probably not that...
The point is, the American Dream is as personal and unique as the individual who holds it. When politicians decree that the Dream is homeownership, they put it upon themselves to help everyone they can get a home. That's the mentality that created the Community Reinvestment Act which has contributed greatly to the current mortgage default crisis.
"...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." That is the American Dream, and it is rooted in the principles and merits of individual achievement. It is not defined, nor is it provided by the government. It is not. And it never, ever should be.
Thus spake John McCain, Republican presidential nominee, during the second presidential debate. Since when did the American Dream become owning a home? McCain and Republicans aren't the only ones who make this equivalence; Democrats do it too. Actually, ask anyone out there what the American Dream is, and they'll probably tell you that it is home ownership.
It's not my dream. I've got a home, but my dreams aren't fulfilled. If you own your home, you may feel the same.
What is my dream? The same thing it's been since I was in grade school. I'd build a big house with a padded bounce room and a bedroom with a slide from the window to the pool.
What is your dream? Probably not that...
The point is, the American Dream is as personal and unique as the individual who holds it. When politicians decree that the Dream is homeownership, they put it upon themselves to help everyone they can get a home. That's the mentality that created the Community Reinvestment Act which has contributed greatly to the current mortgage default crisis.
"...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." That is the American Dream, and it is rooted in the principles and merits of individual achievement. It is not defined, nor is it provided by the government. It is not. And it never, ever should be.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The economic errors of short-term thinking
I had to sigh when I read Kay Hagan's dig on Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) regarding the privatization of Social Security. Hagan is the Democrat running against Dole in this fall's North Carolina Senate race.
Citing the performance of the stock market over the past several weeks, particularly this past Monday, she asked "Where would we be in the last two weeks if Social Security had been privatized?"
It is this type of short-term thinking that got us in the mess we're in. The obvious question that Dole should reply with is "Where would we be if Social Security had been privatized from the start?"
Since 1937, when the first payroll taxes were deducted for Social Security, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from roughly 150 to the 10,000+ level it is at today. Put another way, $1000 invested in the Dow 70 years ago would be $66,000 today, a compound annual growth rate of over 6%.
Has the government done that well with Social Security funds in the past 70 years?
Citing the performance of the stock market over the past several weeks, particularly this past Monday, she asked "Where would we be in the last two weeks if Social Security had been privatized?"
It is this type of short-term thinking that got us in the mess we're in. The obvious question that Dole should reply with is "Where would we be if Social Security had been privatized from the start?"
Since 1937, when the first payroll taxes were deducted for Social Security, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from roughly 150 to the 10,000+ level it is at today. Put another way, $1000 invested in the Dow 70 years ago would be $66,000 today, a compound annual growth rate of over 6%.
Has the government done that well with Social Security funds in the past 70 years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)