A Useless Media

I'm extremely annoyed at how the media - which we rely upon to monitor the actions/in-actions of the government, both to keep them accountable and in check - is becoming @#$% useless. Where are the Hard Questions? Where is the needed distrust of public authority? Why is it OK and anything-goes *only* when you personally agree with the current political leadership?

Mayor Bloomberg told CBS's Katie Couric that the suspect behind the bombing attempt could be a domestic terrorist angry at the government who acted alone. "If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything... There is no evidence here of a conspiracy, there is no evidence that it's tied into anything else. It looks like an amateurish job done by at least one person." How could he *know* at that early point in the investigation there was no conspiracy? And if "it could be anything", why isn't AN ACT OF TERRORISM a legitimate possibility? Has he been asleep for the last decade?

And then there's Geraldo's diatribe on Sunday night... You would have thought the would-be Times Square bomber was either the illegitimate son of Timothy McVeigh or the spawn of an evangelical minister, both overdosed on steroids who got lost downtown looking for an abortion clinic. Geraldo was practically foaming at the mouth, longing for those good old days when the only true enemy was some evil Klu Kluxer waving his hangman’s noose.

Well, surprise, surprise, Gomer: it wasn’t.

For that matter, if it wasn't for some alert private citizens and some smart, fast research by NYPD (and others) this free-lance jihadist would be long gone. In the meantime, Bloomberg and the rest would still be looking under rocks for a connection to 'those unstable and dangerous tea-party bigots'. (And if the cellphone connection research which lead to the arrest had happened under Bush, that same adoring media would have screaming from the rooftops about the use of "excessive police-state actions.")

Worse, the media has uncritically swallowed - and doesn't hesitate to crow about it! - that the administration is *correct* in believing the solution to excessive debt is to borrow more money. *AND* that the deficit can be cut by drastically increasing spending and enacting a vast new government entitlement. *AND* that the way to eliminate the threat posed by insane death-worshiping religious fanatics hell-bent waging nuclear jihad is to appeal to their rationality.

Egad.

That such a group - who no doubt consider themselves as the cream of the intellectual crop - are somehow mentally stunted to the extent they accept such contradictions without question is never going to ask tough questions. I am disturbingly concerned that the now-inevitable next successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil - no matter how devastating it may be - will be summarily dismissed as the result of the excesses of the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies which did nothing by create hordes of new enemies for America. This will lead to a new round of Presidential apologizing, boot-licking, appeasement for our international diplomatic 'efforts'.

Open your eyes, people. See the world as it IS, not as how you wish it to be:

The universal reaction of the Leftist to the disastrous failures of their policies is always to demand more of their policies. That’s why the Left will never give up on its two most cherished ideas, socialism and pacifism, no matter how horrifically such ideas have failed every time they’ve been tried. They believe that THIS TIME, they'll work. And, when it doesn't work (again), they will childishly claim it is due to the failure of the opposition to properly support these unproven and proven-to-fail policies... "YOU can make it work, if you only wanted to! I *want* it, and it's up to YOU to provide for my every need and want, and I WANT IT TO WORK!"

We have turned over the power and force of government to a bunch of selfish children.

Obviously, I'm in a bad mood today...I'm going to crawl back in my hole now.


- Steve

Killing the Golden Goose

I *know* you've been waiting for my pithy response to the situation, so here goes... A few quick notes based on your post...

* * * * *

"This is the death knell of the American Dream!"
- Arguable. Depends on which side of the fence you're on and whether you think America is great because of it's people (when left alone) or its government (when in control).

People are going to lose a lot of sleep over this.
- Correct. On both sides. From the Right: “I can't afford this - what do we do now?” And from the Left: “How do we keep the productive people funneling all their money and efforts into our new vote-buying Ponzi scheme?”

the real loser here is the Republican Party itself.
- Probably. But they have time (a little) to turn this into a dynamic process and return to power. We'll see. (I doubt they have the cojones to do what it will take.)

the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
- That seems like a slight misrepresentation, based on my typically flawed memory. However, the process of “building on ideas” which change the focus of the idea itself (e.g., from a focus on self-reliance to government-reliance) is the creation of a HUGE gap.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views?
- Why? At what point do principles become “not for sale at any price?”

...voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"
- Hardly. They have, however, been persuaded (and correctly) about WHO intends to be making the ultimate decision on the care that grandma gets.

..Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination...
- This whole diatribe assumes that talk radio hosts *only* have a desire to generate ratings for their own personal gain and do not have legitimate political principles behind their statements. Hogwash. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't have a valid political point, even if my career will, as a side point, be impacted positively. Is this any different from claiming (as PROOF) that Al Gore *doesn't* really care about (or believe in) global warming because his business holdings will expressly and directly benefit from the AGW proposals?

...it will come as no shock to you that I am happy we managed to pass this bill. I consider it to be a step in the right direction.
- Just as it will not be a shock to you that I disagree on the direction being taken. Atleast you and I are willing to TALK, even if all we do is agree-to-disagree.

...how much better I believe this bill could have been with Republican input.
Better? For WHO? For those who believe government has a better grasp of what is in *my* best interests than I do?

private enterprise is the engine which harnesses that energy
- And demonizing those who work to provide the fuel driving the economic engine is a morally correct approach?

standing up for their principles and working out compromises which included at least some of the important and necessary market based solutions which health care reform desperately requires.
- Agreed up to the point that there MUST be a line which cannot be crossed. However, in my opinion, there was no true desire or consideration of market-based solutions being offered or that would be accepted by the party in power.

...the real problem at the heart of the health care crisis in this country is supply and demand.
- Agreed. And the demand for a 'free' product or service is infinite. Apparently, that simple economic fact is beyond the authors of the bill.

This bill is going to address some important issues. It has the potential to give government the tools it needs to correct many of the excesses and inflated costs which government itself has been largely responsible for.
- And it has been prevented from making those corrections... how? This bill also has the potential to give government the power to make things MUCH WORSE. All the more reason to more in small, carefully targeted, incremental steps as opposed to the drastic restructing of 18% of the economy. Liberals seem to believe that (effectively) nationalizing health care - which has never functionally worked anywhere else in the world on this scale - will “work” THIS TIME simply because THEY are going to be the ones doing it this time.

Should we not at least expect our representatives to possess the power to read?
- Many on both sides, and IMHO most of the party in power, never read it. We also expect them to LISTEN, and they're not too good at that either.

I repeat: "What then?".
- It depends on which branch of the Republicans find themselves in power. If
it is the 'Country Club Big Government' bunch that has been running things for the last decade or so, then I agree that they will likely screw things up, too. On the other hand if a truly traditional conservative (e.g., self-reliance focus) power base, then we'll have to see, won't we?

They have not only dismissed the public option (understandable), but also trashed the idea of insurance exchanges (preposterous).
- As stated many times before: I have no objection to government agencies providing optional (*not* mandatory) services ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. But when government programs don't have to make a profit and can dip into the public trough as needed without limit, the field ain't level.

if there isn't anything in the bill worth saving, how exactly do Republicans plan to go about fixing a broken system?
- You start over. Everything - including Social security and medicare and all other entitlements - *must* be on the table. No exceptions. When the hole is getting too deep, you have to stop digging first. That's the difficult (but correct) place to start.

they have gone along with the right wing entertainment media's demonization of Democrats.
- Just as the MSM tame dogs are demonizing Republicans. Both sides are wrong by shifting attention away from the ISSUES to one of personal attacks and personal destruction.

do you actually believe liberals running for office in this country all secretly want to euthanize old people?
- Please. No, not expressly. But I do believe there is a substantial number of liberals who believe THEY (and government as a rule) are better able and better qualified to make decisions directly affecting MY life than I am. And, IMHO, they're the same bunch that are more than willing to say “sacrifices must be made” when grandma's treatment is not considered 'cost effective' to the bottom line (assuming she's still alive after the paperwork winds its way through the system).

We need honest, rational conservatives in government and we just aren't getting them.
- I agree 100%. We need some honest, rational liberals, too. In effect, we need fewer politicians and more statesmen. 'Nuff said!

* * * * *

It is no surprise to you, that I believe this bill is a Huge mistake (or 'wishful thinking' at best). Further, while I desperately HOPE the voting public will toss the Big Government politicians (in *both* parties) out on their ear in November, I fear that will not happen. If the appropriate corective steps (in my learned opinion) are not taken by the voters this fall - I and many others will stop arguing, stop protesting, step back, stop growing the economy, and seek to do as little as possible economically - with the explicit goal of providing for me and mine and nothing more. As succinctly described elsewhere, I will be “Going Galt”. If you prefer to call it 'giving up', so be it. In essence, all those folks clamoring to put THEIR hands into MY wallet for THEIR benefit at MY expense, can go pluck the gifts of freedom and liberty off the tree where they think it grows. And please take note that wishing will not make it so. Bread and Circuses.

Short form: I cannot actively support a government (or a society) that demands the human sacrifice of SOME of its (most able?) members to achieve some arbitrary, and unlimited benefit for OTHER (most demanding?) members. I will not willingly braid the rope that will be used to hang me.

- Steve

Bad people! Bad!

The EPA has pronounced "greenhouse gasses" a threat to public health (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html). This is so arrogantly astonishing I have trouble believing it. They can't get Congress to do what they want, so now it's up to one department in the Administration to declare that every American is a polluter.

Humans exhale CO2. Shame on us. Bad, people! Bad! …

Yes, yes, I know the EPA focus is supposedly about managing vehicle emissions, but this policy is not limited to that aspect. This is the first step down dangerous road... I'm Paranoid? Really? Since when does a bureaucracy even *try* limit its power, influence and control?

This is the imposition of "we know best", not even by Congress, but by Administrative fiat. And it's wrong. Period.

- Steve

What is TYRANNY?

I’m going to try and stay on ONE POINT and use multiple posts when needed – that doesn’t mean they’ll be shorter, however…

By my definition – “TYRANNY” occurs when a ruler (whether a single person or committee) places *their* interests above those of the individual or society at large. By that definition, if a government decides what *I* should believe or where in its judgment *I* should place *my* priorities, without consideration of or in direct opposition to *my* views on the subject and thereby uses the force and power of government to accomplish that goal – that government is being tyrannical.

You said… And if society, by the agency of government, accepts the responsibility of caring for the least fit of its constituents, well then so what? If government, by law, forces a man to participate in that responsibility, I would rather consider it an enforcement of generosity rather than of tyranny.

Chris, I *sincerely* hope you are not serious. I’m guessing you’re just pulling my leg or trying to push my buttons. And you did a Good Job, because… I don’t think you could have chosen a better way to clearly define what I consider to be the most despicable and insidious form of TYRANNY in the modern world. It is *not* society’s responsibility to “care for others”. That action must be taken at a personal level. Individuals have responsibilities; groups (e.g., “society”) do not and CANNOT.

Let’s play the Definition Game for a bit… “Charity” - which is the concept you are promoting – cannot and should NEVER be “imposed” upon the unwilling. Why? If participation in such an action must be FORCED, it’s not “charity”. By definition, charity is a VOLUNTARY action. As such, while desirable, Charity is not a Responsibility – it is a CHOICE. “Responsibility” is an aspect of “Duty” and “Obligation”, which are also Freely Chosen. And, above all, “Choice” is an action taken at an Individual level. Even if the decision is promoted by a group (“we think this should happen”), the Individual *chooses* to follow that Recommendation - voluntarily. And will reap or suffer the consequences accordingly.

This key point is where I have serious philosophical issues with the Left. And, to be sure, I have the same problem with some who stand on the Right, too. It’s not a Left-vs-Right or Democrat-vs-Republican thing… It’s much more Basic.

I *do not* believe that voluntary participation in a group releases (or transfers) *MY* Responsibility and Accountability. I may choose to “work with others” with the object of accomplishing greater things and expanding the scope of my efforts. But, ultimately, the Responsibility remains MINE… Let’s take the next step: people may choose NOT to acknowledge a Responsibility and attempt to re-assign or abdicate their Accountability. This is just as Wrong as trying to impose your will upon another.

Now - There *are* responsibilities one acquires by participating in a group (i.e., being a member of the group has Rules). In that case, and in that case only, the group *may* be justified in questioning one’s continued participation. There is (or should be) the option of expulsion from the group as an alternative. Simply, if you are going to receive the BENEFIT of being part of the group, you must be appropriately ACCOUNTABLE. The decision to submit, leave or be kicked out *must* remain with the INDIVIDUAL – it is *not* up to the group to “decide” what action to take beyond expulsion. (You can also ask the Rules be changed, but let’s keep it simple.)

Chris – you cannot ENFORCE a sense of GENEROSITY… You either have it or you don’t… Using *Force* to impose the will and judgment of one over the wishes of another is TYRANNY.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck; odds are - it’s a duck… What you described as being an acceptable aspect and function of government is TYRANNY, plain and simple… Call it a “Bed of Roses” if that will let you sleep at night, but that doesn’t change what it *IS*.

C’mon, pal - you *know* where I am headed… It goes back to that glorious Jeffersonian prose:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

These Rights are granted by God – not by “groups” or “governments” or “courts” – they are inherent with existence. And - These rights are granted to individuals, and not because they belong to some favored group, or passed a litmus test, or rubbed blue mud in their navels while chanting “Ommm”… And no, some are *not* more equal than others – it says *ALL* MEN…

“…to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”

The government works FOR the people, government is a Servant, NOT a “Master”. There are *WAY* too many people who use the power of government to enforce THEIR opinions and THEIR motivations onto others. It is reasonable and just for The People to rise up in revolt when this happens…

“…laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

There is NO GUARANTEE such Safety and Happiness will be achieved. Note that what constitutes being “safe” and “happy” are, BY DEFINITION, based on one’s Individual judgment. *YOU* cannot *force* me to accept what YOU define as “what makes ME ‘safe’ or ‘happy’”. But we’ll try our best – “as to them shall seem”, e.g., in OUR judgment, by voluntary agreement.

“…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...”

You don’t change things frivolously or because “it doesn’t seem right (to me)”. And you *certainly* don’t change things, just because YOU are the one in charge at this moment. Nor do you use your (temporary) wielding of power to impose YOUR judgment and YOUR wishes onto others…

I could go on and on… But let’s get back to the point:

It is clear that I promote Individualism while you (apparently) promote Collectivism. These are diametrically opposed philosophies. I doubt we will change the other’s mind; I still have the hope you will one day reject the Dark Side. ;-) The key difference between us is that YOU have chosen to subordinate your own judgment to whatever is deemed to be “in the best interests of the ‘collective’”. There are many that agree with you; like Rousseau. Bully for you: I hope you are happy with your choice. Have fun…

But, I respectfully disagree. THAT is not a choice I am willing to make. However, I will defend your right to make that choice for yourself. It goes without saying that you are welcome to attempt to convince me to go along where we share a common ground or have the same objective - just as I will ask you to follow my lead on occasion… If we agree, wonderful – if not, maybe next time… And it ends right there.

In this respect, I agree with many aspects (but *not* all) of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism – which regards man - every man - as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. (And in spite of his occasional ‘irrational’ actions.)

A truly civilized society - or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men - can be achieved *only* on the basis of the recognition of Individual Rights. A “group” has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.

When it comes to governance, I hold that the State *must* - as it’s *first* priority - take clear and distinct actions to protect the freedoms and liberty of Individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the freedoms and liberties of others. Despite their posturing to be “fighting for the Little Guy” or “representing the oppressed”, what Collectivism really wants is True Democracy – where the ‘group’ leadership decides who gets thrown to the wolves, and the ‘winner’ goes along joyfully. Obviously, this is Great for the leadership; not so good for everyone else… This is dishonest governance at best.

The downfall with Collectivism – which Rand points out ad nauseam - happens when it becomes apparent that “the collective goal” requires *MY* participation in order for “things to work”. When I refuse, Collectivism mandates the use of FORCE to IMPOSE the will of the collective. (Otherwise, if it were to fail – it could not be due to flawed logic or poor implementation or that the thesis flatly ignored common sense - it can only fail because *I* sabotaged it by failing to participate.) It is a very short step to Totalitarianism, which I think is Very WRONG – and one of the few things worse than simple, misguided Collectivism.

In my view, only an Individual can possess rights; so the expression "individual rights" is redundant. The expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms. Individual Rights are not (and should never be) subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority (although that truism rarely stops some from trying).

In essence, the political function of RIGHTS is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities: and the smallest minority is the individual. That is not to say that we will not err, or make no mistakes… “I’m messed up, You’re messed up, we’re all messed up” … but those mistakes – or successes – to cherish or learn from, will be OURS and ours alone.

If you believe there is an inherent goodness in mankind – a positive value represented by each and every one of us - then you can believe nothing less than the ultimate rights, responsibility and accountability which reside with the INDIVIDUAL.

Let me close by repeating the simple fact because that we are able to maintain a sense of honesty and a humble recognition of our differences, we are allowed to rationally and critically evaluate each other’s desires and motivations with respect and honor. It is to our joint credit. Thank you.

- Steve

Capitalism by Lemmings

Allow me to depart, for a short while, from attempting to stay above the ideological fray… (I need a break anyway; I can only do this for so long…)

Fair Warning - This is going to be a L-O-N-G post…

To begin, I must apologize… The President *has* called for cuts in spending – and (surprise!) it was Defense Spending! Back in January, 2009, he asked for an 11% cut in Pentagon spending. Given the challenges we are facing in the world from a military point-of-view, that action seems potentially dangerous. But, for the moment – let’s go with those making those cuts (which would total about 55 Billion, I think) As a matter of fact, about 75% of the budget "cuts" he has requested come from the Defense Budget. So, while we’re busy using that scalpel you suggested (instead of my butter knife) – here’s a few non-military cuts to consider - many are taken directly from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Plan :

- $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years

- $2 billion for child-care subsidies

- $50 million for that engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts

- $400 million for MORE global-warming research (sorry, Al, but isn’t there already a “consensus”? isn’t it true “the discussion is over”?)

- $2.4 billion for “carbon-capture demonstration projects”

- $650 million (on top of billions already doled out) to pay for digital TV conversion coupons (at about 120 million homes, it would have been cheaper to just by one from Wal-Mart send it to every household in the country)

- $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars

- $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities

- $150 million for the Smithsonian

- $81 billion for Medicaid

- $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits

- $20 billion for food stamps

- $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax

- $66 billion on education (because it is obviously working so much more effectively than our military)

- $6 billion to weatherize “modest income homes”

- $6 billion to provide internet in “underserved” areas

- $6 billion for “higher education modernization.”
- $20 billion in health information technology to “prevent medial mistakes.”

- $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate modeling.

- $250 million “to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.” (thanks for being so specific)

- $300 million for the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries

- $400 million for “ready-to-go habitat restoration projects”

- $120 million to provide subsidized community service jobs to an additional 24,000 low-income older Americans
- $1.5 billion to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies.

- $500 million to rehabilitate and improve energy efficiency at some of the over 42,000 housing units maintained by Native American housing programs
- $10 million for “rural, high-need areas to undertake projects using sustainable and energy-efficient building and rehabilitation practices”

…etc., etc., etc…

WHOA! Steady there! Calm down!... I will admit *some* of the entries on that list are arguably “needed”. But is there no room for eliminating THINGS THAT DON’T WORK? (which, BTW, are his exact words to justify cutting the Defense budget) In the midst of a recession, does ALL of this really qualify as CRITICAL “investing”? NOTHING on that list can wait – not even for One Year? Do these spending proposals really expand and encourage PRIVATE SECTOR jobs (or just create temporary public sector jobs)? Short form: Do we *really* need to increase spending across the board? I DOUBT IT. (I could go on and on, and so could you).

A quote attributed to good ol’ Senator Everett Dirkson states it nicely– "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money".

Yes, there *are* legitimate ways and reasons to enact carefully considered cuts in the Pentagon budget. But taking a shotgun approach to the Left’s whipping boy – while ignoring the very serious foolishness in other parts of the budgeting process - is insane at best and could place the country as a whole in significant danger. A 50% cut – without corresponding cuts in domestic spending - is a recipe for disaster. (You can’t wait for the “need” to surface before you start the R&D.) And, like it or not, there ARE people and countries out there who DO NOT LIKE US. They don’t care how much we “want to talk” or “feel a need to understand their issues”. There is no guarantee any kind of dialogue will remove the gun he has pointed at our head. (But pointing a better gun at HIS head will at least get his attention. If he is willing to kill himself to make his point, we lose nothing by being prepared - and still have the option of taking him out first.)

Cuts to the Defense budget is a move than should be taken cautiously and with careful consideration. You don’t do it just because “times are tough” and because “we all have to make sacrifices”. (Really? Unions, too? Government employees? Companies deemed “too big to fail?”)

OK… maybe I was being too obtuse about making specific cuts. So, let’s make it real simple and jump back out of the funnel and look at the Big Picture…

Immediately FREEZE *all* federal spending at the 2009 budget level. Do it for one year, no… make that TWO YEARS. That means 2010 and 2011 will have *NO* increases, whether previously planned or not. No COLA adjustments in benefit payments to individuals. No raises for staffers. No new jobs ‘created’ at the public teat. No pay raises for ANYONE; not even the military… THAT is “controlling runaway spending” in a very real way we can all understand.

If you want to get technical, how about formally locking federal spending to a defined percentage of collected tax revenues in the previous year (and that percentage can’t be more than 100%). And then mandate that any – repeat *any* - department that exceeds it’s budget will have its NEXT annual budget reduced by the amount of the overage… THAT will drive people to seek “efficiency” in government like nothing else.

As a knuckle-dragging, greedy, fiscal conservative - am I being too tough? Or too aggressively tight-fisted? Tough times require tough measures, don’t they? And let’s not forget… It’s not THEIR money – that’s MY MONEY they are spending! (and YOURS, too).

The easiest and most effective way for government to “benefit private industry” is to Get The Hell Out Of The Way. And that specifically means - Stop trying to invent new and creative ways to TAX anything that currently moves, moved at one time, or is no longer capable of moving. The transfer of Real Wealth from Private Entities to the Government DOESN’T WORK.

“I think you will find that the foreign competitors who have been cleaning our clock for so many years are the ones who have managed to make government an effective partner rather than a nagging wife (or husband - sorry ladies)…” Really? The governments of the most “successful” foreign competitors we have are run by despots and tyrants (whether by individuals or committees). The ‘successful economic’ example of exactly which country are you suggesting we follow? China?

“I'm not going to dive into the specifics of where and how Obama's budget proposals aim at backing up and augmenting private enterprise rather than leading it around by the nose.” Please try and find the time – I see a lot of nose leading and demands being made. The only ‘backing up’ I see is jerking back on the reins. The only visible “augmenting” is the addition of onerous regulation and back-seat-driving.

Let’s be serious – there are a new set of rules being set up by the current administration. The game is changing. I admit it’s not a Soviet Union / China hybrid of socialism / communism. It certainly isn’t a version of capitalism that Adam Smith or Ronald Reagan would recognize. At best, will look like the Japanese style of economic governance. Are they the international ‘clock-cleaner’ you want us to follow?

In Japan, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI), informally “guides” companies and basically tells them what to do. Fortunately, in the Japanese culture, a soft hand is all that is needed since a nod is a good as a command. In the rough-and-tumble US, you gotta use a hammer just to get their attention. Accordingly, the PRO’s are pulling out some Big Hammers. Either way, you could label this new goal as “Capitalism by Lemmings”.

Companies are not supposed to look out for their shareholders or their employees or even their customers. Their single focus is to watch Washington – because they will tell us what to do. Washington will control the decisions, not the marketplace.

Am I exaggerating? Look at how the mortgage ‘rescue’ plan is operating under government control and private (barely) ownership. Look at the cap-and-trade proposal and the emphasis on government mandated controls in accordance with “green” lending practices and “green” job creation, and “green” this and “green” that. (“One Fish, Two Fish, Green Fish, Green Fish”). Look at the brutal strong-arm actions leading up to the Chrysler deal…

And have you noticed how foreign nationals, especially terrorists, will have no fear of reprisal or any reason to suspect a violation of their constitutional rights – but that CEOs of US companies do *not* have the same ‘rights’? And these actions and tactics by the administration are supposed to ENCOURAGE business and private industry? Please.

Their Goal is very simple: Washington knows best.

And before you go dancing down this road, I’d like to point out: “No, It Doesn’t.”

Look at how wonderfully effective the Japanese economy has been for the past 20 years. They provide modern validation to the fact that government usually gets it wrong. Sometimes it fails to anticipate the market (Japan downplayed laptop computers and stressed mainframes). More often, government is so beholden to the demands of special interests that it ends up worried about dividing up the economic pie for the benefit of “the consensus” (which just happens to correspond to their political supporters).

You probably dislike this comment, but I think it has at least a grain of Truth that is often ignored - "Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." – Ayn Rand.

As long as I am standing on my “extremist soapbox”, and before I get down from these lofty heights – what we are experiencing, what we are facing, what we are being asked to swallow and be grateful to have received - is called TYRANNY.

If you want to “cut” something - start there.

- Steve

Fandango Side-Step

Chris, I think you’re a little guilty of reading between the lines on me. You seem to think I’m bashing the Obama administration in favor of the Republicans: Not hardly, although I can see why you might think that...

1. It is clear, the economy started slowing down last summer. I don’t contribute that solely to small business, but yes, they’re part of it. The monthly single-digit tax revenue losses were a signal ignored by ALL.

2. The *BIG* reductions in tax revenue started in December (check the numbers). That’s after the election. With the euphoria surrounding the election, why did that happen? Once the decision was made, it was time to act on the outcome. Maybe I’m assigning too much ‘credit’ to small business for making moves. If so, mea culpa. (“But, it still moves”).

3. At no point did I assert that if Republicans had won in November, this fiasco would not have happened. That said…

4. I deliberately *did* imply that the Democratic win probably accelerated the process. I’m also stating rather forcefully that the policies being promoted by the PRO’s will likely prolong the recession. Once again, I’m not trying to assign blame for precisely how we got here, but where I see us going will NOT get us out of this mess – and I think that’s the type of discussion you want to have, anyway.

Now, commenting on your “Stark Reasons”:

Point One – Mostly I agree. Yes, the recession was inevitable. I think there has been more to it than simple trade deficits - runaway spending comes to mind, among other things. And please don’t waste time pointing fingers at which party spent the most: Focusing on assigning blame gets us nowhere.

Point Two – I respectfully disagree. Yes, you raise a valid point about “losing out for years”. I agree with that. However, I contend that small businesses *do* make decisions based on their legitimate interpretation of government policy and what it means to their business survival. They delay as long as possible before making that decision, but when it becomes obvious, they MOVE and take action quickly – and the results show up in the economy fast, too.

Point Three - It is hard to argue that based on the announced proposals and policies of the PRO’s that business in general (and small business specifically) have a target painted on them. Whether those policies are proposed by President Obama or a theoretical “President McCain” is not the point.

I’m not arguing about the WHO; it’s the WHAT THEY ARE DOING that is Wrong. Do I want OBAMA to fail? No. Absolutely Not... I WANT THE POLICIES HE IS PROMOTING TO FAIL. (OK. There. That should be clear. You want to “have at it”: Let’s rock.)

First, We’re going to agree that SPENDING is a BIG part of the problem. As far as the current administration - I don’t see any attempt, even marginal ones, to try and rein in the spending. If anything they are SPENDING MORE. This is BAD.

Second: Is *some* spending necessary? Absolutely. But you cannot "spend" you way to a recovery. You must begin by acknowledging that any spending on government programs by government employees, it is an EXPENSE, not INCOME. If a policy does not generate or promote Private Sector revenue - or at least not get in the way of making it possible - IT WON’T WORK in the long run. There is *way* too much pork and unnecessary (so-called ‘discretionary’) spending coming out of D.C., and you can put that 100% at the feet of the PRO’s. And, please remember, whether the Republicans or “President McCain” would have done the same is immaterial.

Third: You mentioned the current administration “are taking some initiatives” – Really?

- Spending Billions of dollars on corporate bailouts which run up TRILLIONS of dollars in U.S. debt. (Where is the exit strategy for this spending? When does it stop?)…

- Changing how student loans work (from loans to direct payments)…

- Suggesting criminal prosecution against Bush-era lawyers for ‘interrogation techniques’…

- ‘protecting’ the Health Care proposal from Republican filibuster

Whose head is in the sand when it comes to working on what is Truly Important? In other words, would you please point out these policies and “initiatives" designed to foster and improve competition in the world marketplace? I can’t find ‘em.) Yeah, it's only been "100 days", but you would THINK that he would be focused on the Most Important issues first - and, seeing where the PRO's have been working on - it doesn't look good. What they are doing is like pounding imaginary ants with a banana - no matter how much you enjoy it, it is ultimately messy and unproductive.

Look, even if the economy shows huge gains later this year - I seriously doubt it, but I admit it’s possible - the PRO’s economic policies represent a HUGE shift toward government expansion and intervention. They need TAX MONEY to support all this spending - and all these government contracts and 'new workers' – where are they going to get it? from WHO?

What can be done? (regardless of WHO is in the Oval Office)… Here’s some EASY ones:

1. Suspend ALL Salary Increases (including COLA) for all non-critical, non-emergency federal government employees for the next three years (e.g., military, FEMA, etc., are exempt – this is a cut on bureaucratic / office positions only).

2. Rollback the last TWO rounds of Congressional pay raises.

3. Require that all Congressional and Executive staff budgets be reduced by not less than 10%. Cut the people or cut the salaries, whatever it takes.

(Harsh? Maybe. But those are the kinds of CHANGES that businesses have to make when times get tough…)

4. Suspend all direct payments in “foreign aid” for one year: not just our ‘enemies’, not just our 'friends', ALL of them. While we're at it, send the UN a BILL for the cost of supplying US troops for all these UN 'peacekeeping' tasks. Being the world's policeman has a price, but not just paid out of our pocket...

One more; I'm on a roll...

5. (I call this the “tit-for-tat” rule; wish it was my idea). All imports coming into the US are immediately subject to the “mirror image” of tariffs, fees, inspections, etc., which are applied to US Exports headed to that country. In other words, if you make it hard for OUR products to come into YOUR country, it will be just as hard for YOUR products to come into OUR country. Make it easy for us; it will be easy for you… Translation: Level the Import/Export playing field. (Asia will have a well-deserved fit over this one.)

There you go. Chew on ‘em.

- Steve

Unintended Economic Consequences of Political Posturing

My turn to stir the pot - This is a long one, so put on your hip boots and follow along…

I’ll start by pointing out that – a very short year ago – April 2008 produced an all-time record for federal tax collections; over $400 Billion. That number is not particularly spectacular if you consider the April number is typically pumped up every year by receipt of tax payments on the previous year and first quarter estimate pre-payments. Anyway, April 2008 collections was a 6.1% increase over April 2007 revenues. (Hmmm… in spite of all those ‘tax breaks for the rich’, we collected More Money?) Same-month tax collections in 2008 slowly dropped through May, June and July (4.6%, 4.1%, 2.2%), but these were still increases over same-month collections recorded in 2007. Then the value of federal tax collections started going south, decreasing for the rest of the year. Starting in August, drops were -5.1%, -4.4% -6.9%, -3.4%, and a whopping -14.1% reduction in December, 2008. The reduction continued into 2009 with losses of -11.4% and -17.4% in January and February.

Why?

The instinctive reaction (by some) is that this represents some kind of manipulation by ‘those greedy, fascist, corporate fat-cats on Wall Street’… Big Business is behind it… I’ll toss the BS flag on that.

Instead, I think this loss in tax revenue is the (natural) result of otherwise subtle actions taken by Small Business America. Sure, Big Business is Big and can certainly have a huge impact on the economy. But the inherent and hidden power which rests in the hands of the entrepreneur class is much more far-reaching. So what caused this sudden and relatively radical shift in federal tax revenues?

I’m going to label it the PRO Economy (Pelosi-Reid-Obama), which got seriously cranked-up in June of 2008 and ran all the way to Election Day in November. What has happened is a should-have-been-expected result of their proposed policies and public statements. You reap what you sow.

The PRO’s began by repeatedly telling the country they were taking direct aim at the conventional sources of energy which drive our economic engine. They stated this unilateral action was critically necessary to ‘save the planet’ from environmental destruction. As inherently stupid as that may be, they didn’t stop there. They also declared their intention to aggressively tax the 5% of the Producers (i.e., people who actually pay taxes) with the express goal of redistributing that confiscated wealth to others (e.g., the people that vote for them).

By September, the long-time-coming real estate bubble finally burst, with plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. Those in charge at D.C. pushed for and passed a series of bailouts, not only for the troubled financial sector but they manufactured an almost endless list of folks who wanted their access to government largess, too. Yes, this stupidity started in one party’s administration, but it was continued even more aggressively by the next party’s henchmen. "Who started it" is not the point.

In a classic case of “unintended consequences”, I think those small-and-middle sized taxpayers – especially the ones hovering around that so-called $250K threshold - started heading for the lifeboats. If the summer political diatribes and obvious signal flags didn’t do it, the Sept-Oct bailout fiasco certainly opened their eyes. They didn’t take action because of current economic conditions (which were mediocre at that time). No - They just started thinking about what the economic conditions would be like in the not-too-distant future, based on the publicly stated agenda of the PRO’s and their ilk… And once everything fell into place, they started looking for their own ‘exit strategy’.

I’m talking about entrepreneurs and small investors, here: the Real Lifeblood of our economy. Everyone with a small business who struggles day-to-day with providing products and services, keeping track of payables and receivables, making payroll and generally trying to earn a buck. Reluctantly, I think, they took the steps smart businesspeople *always* take they see a serious recession is taking hold… They stopped hiring, stopped expanding, they let people go and didn’t replace them, they tried to make worn-out equipment last a few months longer, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, they started deliberately downsizing their personal business in response to what appeared to be on the horizon for them. They saw nothing but penalties and punishment coming their way – which would be wielded by the PRO’s and directed predominately at THEM. If you are familiar with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the Highly Effective People (e.g., the Producers) “Went Galt.” They effectively announced, “If you clowns really think *I* am the problem, then you can fix this mess without me.”

The end-result of this logical and understandable reaction of the Productive Class is driving the recession much deeper than many think. (Don’t be surprised if the DOW drops below 6000 before its over, and maybe around 5000.) This is pushing federal tax receipts into free-fall. I’ll jump out on a limb and predict April 2009’s tax receipts will show a staggering drop from the $400 billion collected in 2008: down to say $225 billion give or take a bit. Ouch.

There was a similar downturn in tax collections in 2001 and 2002, related to terrorism and other factors. But this time, it will be far worse. And when you combine the collection shortfall with the unbridled spending spree by the PRO’s in D.C., I think the CBO’s estimate of “only” a $1.85 Trillion shortfall will be *way* off the mark. How does a $2+ TRILLION dollar deficit sound? And that’s just for ONE YEAR. Ouch, indeed.

If – repeat *IF* - the PRO’s and what passes for an opposition party - would CHANGE COURSE and reach the conclusion that Real Economic growth and the ultimate survival of the country is *far* more important than pursuing environmental boondoggles, engaging in class warfare, and justifying government takeovers of large corporations and demonizing anyone that gets in their way… then maybe, just MAYBE, enough of those Productive Few who have “Gone Galt” might come back in from the wilderness and re-join the fray. If they don’t – all bets are off.

But does anyone think the PRO’s are even *remotely* likely to pass up their best chance in a generation for a *huge* power grab and Do The Right Thing? Hint: it’s not about the Money - it’s about the POWER.

I’m sorry. IMHO, while the Republicans have insanely abandoned their core conservative principles (they’ve turned into Democrat-Lite), the PRO’s are the worst kind of far-left ideologues. To these bozos, it’s not about doing the Right Thing – it’s about how what you’re doing LOOKS. (And always with an eye towards increasing their power over others.) They will not be deterred by the Failure of their policies and actions: after all, they had Good Intentions, didn’t they? Isn’t that all that matters? Besides, it would all work if only everyone would give it a chance and stop sabotaging what I’m trying to do…

To the clowns-in-charge, Failure doesn’t require changing course or finding alternatives: all one needs to do is assign and vilify suitable scapegoats. And then they can keep doing whatever they want, even when it clearly doesn’t work… And, like it or not, the PRO’s are in charge – they have the control in their hands, so the ball is in their court. Don’t try to blame the previous administrations, either. The PRO’s have enough time to FIX this mess, *if* they can rise above personal ambition and place the welfare of the Country ahead of staying in control. This is a time for statesmen; not politicians and bureaucrats.

Now… before you jump on me with both feet… this isn’t a Democrat-vs.-Republican thing. I can just as easily argue that a substantial portion of the reasons why we got in this mess can be laid at the feet of Republican buffoons. So What? It’s not about assigning ‘blame’. It’s about REALLY working together and solving problems. And sometimes that requires you set aside YOUR interests in favor of Doing Whatever It Takes To Get The Job Done.

As far as what the PRO’s are proposing and actually doing… Well, IMHO and as we say in the South… That Dog Won’t Hunt.

- Steve