right to revolution

washington vs. wall street

2010-02-26T09:54:00.000-08:00

Over the past year, Washington and Wall Street have been attacking each other. In his State of the Union address, President Obama attacked both. After a year into his administration, President Obama has hit a new tone: populism. With his ratings falling, and support of his policies dwindling, Obama is seeking to reenergize those who voted in change only 14 months ago. Yet his approach will only worsen the problems.

The attack on Wall Street might actually end up hurting the economy at a time when it is least needed. In a time of economic uncertainty, what is needed is a clear message so investors will know how to respond. Mixed signals are forcing investors to look elsewhere, unsure of what is going to be taxed or regulated. His populist appeal is elongating the capital freeze, which will only elongate the recession.

This uncertainty is because a lot of what he says simply doesn’t add up. The number one issue is jobs and helping the economy to recover, and a major part of the sluggish recovery is the credit freeze by banks. Yet his proposed bank tax will take the money banks could be loaned out to small businesses and transfer that to the government. In addition, he stated that he does not want to punish the banks, yet the tax is a punitive fee for “bad behavior.”

Then there was the attack on Washington. It is difficult for a citizen to hear a President talk about Washington as an outside after being in office for a year with a super majority in both houses. He said all this while referring to cynicism and distrust of Washington, citing reckless Wall Street and lobbyists as the cause while completely ignoring the backroom deals and closed-doors negotiations. He blamed Congress, calling out the Senate for not passing his financial reform bill. He even hammered on the Supreme Court for declaring parts of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform unconstitutional.

His solution? Demand it. If Congress won’t approve a finance commission, he’ll issue an executive order. If the Supreme Court is going to shoot down finance reform, he’ll get a bill passed through Congress. Because the separation of powers is impeding his agenda, he sees it fit to circumvent these checks and balances. Apparently he is the only one with good ideas, and whatever he says should be what is done. This man does not seem to understand that perhaps everyone is opposing him for a reason; that perhaps people are dissatisfied with Washington because of what he’s trying to do.

Quite possibly the most pompous declaration of all, and a major contribution to the distrust of Washington, was that we Americans do not agree with healthcare reform because we do not understand it; that if we had known “what was in it for us,” we would be in support of his agenda. This is arrogant for two reasons: first, he assumes that he could not possibly be wrong, but the millions of Americans who oppose it are wrong. Second, he assumes that Americans actually think entitlements and handouts are good and should be pursued, when many of those who opposed his reform do so precisely for the reason that it is an entitlement and an expansion of federal authority.

This over-exertion of executive authority will only exaggerate American’s view of Washington. Obama is attempting to establish the presidency has the head of all three branches of government. Clearly, this is precisely the type of tyranny the framers of the Constitution tried to avoid.

the budget freeze that isn't

2010-01-28T16:37:00.000-08:00

edward lazear, chairman of the president's council of economic advisers from 2006 to 2009, writes an important article about the effect of the proposed budget freeze and other fiscal concerns.

Let us pay close attention to the president's message. But let us not be confused by promises of jobs, coupled with fiscally responsible sounding language that masks the underlying irresponsibility of budget decisions. Proposals that increase taxes and spending, even if they do not increase the deficit, will place a substantial burden on our recovering economy and on future economic growth.

full article

the tyranny of political paternalism

2010-01-20T23:10:00.000-08:00

“We are our brother’s keeper!” With this as the battle cry, the Democrats resolved to provide health care for all individuals. It is our responsibility to help other people, so they saw it fit to turn responsibility into law. Yet in doing so they trampled on the very morality they claimed to uphold, and therein lies the paradox of political paternalism, or moral leadership. Paternalism is tyranny, and has become our modern-day King George from which we must declare our independence.

The central principle of paternalism is moral leadership. It is the notion that an authority can make a decision on behalf of another because it is in that individual’s best interest, regardless of what he or she desires. The recent health care legislation is a prime example of paternalism. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans were against the health care bill (42% for, 54% against), Congress felt obliged to pass it anyway. They declared that we have a moral obligation to provide health care to every individual. However, a government that acts with morality as its guide is illegitimate, as it leads to excessive expansion of federal powers.

The government cannot legitimately assume a moral position because first and foremost it is an amoral institution. It is a tool of the people, and tools cannot have morals. Rather, morality is derived from the conscience of the individual. Governments, lacking consciences, also lack a moral code. While there may be an absolute standard of right and wrong, it is up to the individual to discover and accept it. Moral principles can be taught, but they cannot be forced. In the words of Henry David Thoreau, “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?”

In addition, the government cannot legitimately enforce a moral code. An administration forcing individuals to act a certain way on the basis of morality is contrary to morality itself. Morality is entirely based on choice. Just like you cannot force someone to accept a moral principle, you cannot force another person to take a moral action. A moral action requires the agent to act because he deems it as “good.” When coercion is involved, the agent does not act under those pretenses, as he has no choice, and the action fails to be a moral one.

For example, the current administration claims that because “you are your brother’s keeper,” you have the responsibility to help others pay for health care. To help us fulfill that responsibility they legislate their moral code into law by mandating that every individual buys health insurance. However, when it becomes law the choice is no longer ours to make, which leaves us with no means of fulfilling our obligation. We act with no thought toward our fellow Americans or fulfilling our responsibility to them, for the choice to act has been made for us. Their entire reason for enacting the policy becomes void and contradictory, defiling the very morality they declare to uphold.

There are those who may be thinking, “But there still is the choice! They can choose to not buy health insurance!” First, this contradicts their notion that because everyone has a responsibility to help a universal mandate should be established. If it were the case that they should have choice, then there would be no reason to include this mandate. Additionally, if someone chooses to not buy insurance, he will be required to pay a fine which will be revenue to fund the health care of others. Either way, the choice has been made for him, and he will foot the bill. The remaining alternative, however, is more damning: that individuals shouldn’t have a choice. I can concede that there are legitimate taxes individuals should be required to pay in order to provide public goods, like the military. The difference is that individuals automatically receive benefits directly from these, whether they pay or not, and because they are receiving benefits they should be required to pay. On the other hand, individuals do not receive any sort of benefit from health insurance by the simple fact that the industry exists, and so there is no reason why they should pay. Unless, of course, you declare that freedom is insignificant.

You cannot accept this health care legislation without conceding that freedom is not valuable, or at least not as valuable as cutting costs. Yes, we may be able to save a few lives by increasing coverage. But it seems that we have long forgotten the words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.” The time has come for America to choose, and the choice was made for us, contrary to our will. Unless we rise against this modern-day tyranny of paternalism, we do not deserve the liberty our forefathers fought to protect. We the people still hold the power, and can change the political climate. Already, the Arizona state legislature has passed a bill allowing a vote on nullifying federal health care reform, and the Texas Attorney General is preparing to file a multi-state lawsuit over the constitutionality of the legislation. Massachusetts essentially had a referendum against the legislation by voting in Scott Brown. As the states build resistance a political war will unfold. It appears that the fight is not over, but has just begun.

scylla vs charybdis - why the senate bill passed

2010-01-10T22:19:00.001-08:00

In passing the Senate version of the health care bill, the Democratic Party has committed political suicide. Don’t blame them, though; it wasn’t their fault. In fact, either passing or rejecting the bill would have been suicide. When President Obama made health care reform number one on his agenda, he set his party on a course between Scylla and Charybdis. The Senate then had two options: ram the bill through despite the lack of public support, or side with their constituents and vote the bill down. Yet either option would end in failure. It was a choice between losing a few Congressman or the entire party. Like Odysseus, Democrats opted for Scylla and indeed will likely lose Congressmen in the next round of elections. But in so doing, perhaps they will be able to keep the party as a whole afloat.

Abandoning the Senate bill could have been Charybdis, a whirlpool that would have destroyed the Democratic Party. With not much to show after nearly a year in office, Obama demanded legislation on health care reform. Failure to pass the bill would have resulted in a major blow to any confidence in the Democratic Party to get anything done. Pundits on the right would use this as firepower against Democrats as the party of “broken promises” and “do nothings.” Yet it would be those on the left who would be outraged, possibly abandoning the Democratic Party. This two-pronged attack might have been too much for the Party.

Scylla proved to be the enticing choice for Democrats. And indeed, a number of senators have fallen already. Senator Ben Nelson has lost support after a scandalous compromise with Senator Reid, essentially buying out his vote. In doing so, he voted against 67% of his constituents who opposed the Senate bill. 61% said they are less likely to vote for him when his seat comes up for reelection in 2012. Senator Dodd of Connecticut and Senator Dorgan of North have already chosen to not seek reelection. Undoubtedly, the Republicans will gain seats in both chambers, and current polls are an indication of that.

The ramifications go even further. Currently, the Attorney General from Texas is preparing to submit a multistate lawsuit against the health care reform, stating that the mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Even if that goes under there is talk of nullification, in which a state rules to not accept a federal law. Arizona has already passed in both the Senate and House state legislatures, to put on the 2010 ballot a referendum which would override any law that requires individuals to participate in a particular health care system, prohibit fines for not purchasing health insurance, and overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Perhaps the biggest impact, however, is that this act shows the disrespect that Congress has for the opinions of their constituents. Only 42% of the American people supported the Senate bill the week it passed, while 54% opposed it. The week before only 36% supported the bill. A Congressman’s responsibility is to represent his or her constituents. Passing this bill more than shirked, but defied that responsibility.

When Congress votes contrary to the voice of the people it is because the voice of the people is not loud enough. Yes, there has been much screaming over the past six months, particularly from the right. We all recall the near-violent town hall meetings. But Congress is not listening. While their responsibility is to listen, it is our responsibility to make ourselves heard, in ways that they will listen. We the people need to come up with better solutions on how to hold our Congressmen accountable.

Health care reform? Or just more of the same?

2009-12-29T01:15:00.000-08:00

Lawmakers are currently attempting to pass legislation that will lower costs. A simple lesson in economics will show how their reform will actually increase costs. There are three main reasons why healthcare costs are increasing: the care is getting better, we are getting richer, and the patients are getting unhealthier. The reform, rather than fixing each of these, actually exaggerates these reasons.

If you compare the miracle of modern medicine to its grandfather of decades ago you will notice the drastic improvement due to technology and innovation. Better coverage comes at higher costs; to think that hospitals should be able to operate at the same cost today as they did even ten years ago, with all the technological advances and high-tech equipment they have access to now, is madness. Better care comes at a higher cost. Cutting costs would stifle innovation in the field of medicine. It inherently implies lowering the rate of return on investment of pharmaceuticals and machinery, meaning that people would not get much back for medical breakthroughs. This lack of incentive is enough kill innovation, decreasing the quality of our healthcare for all. The same goes for not just capital but also those in the profession, as salaries are slashed in an attempt to cut costs. Attempting to cut costs through this reform can only lead to decreased quality.

Healthcare has an income elasticity of 1.6, classifying it as a luxury good. This means that as people’s incomes increase they will spend a higher percentage of their income on healthcare. As I’m sure you have noticed America is continuing to get richer with GDP, and thus income, increasing about 3.3 percent a year. Thus, as our incomes grow over time the demand for quality healthcare is going to increase as well, driving up the price. This is not the fault of greedy insurance companies, but merely the work of the invisible hand. The reform would force every American to have insurance. Mandating that all citizens buy insurance would drive up the price of private insurance because of increased demand, crowding out those who could have afforded it but no longer can. This squeezes more people out of private insurance into the public option. There is no “choice” or “competition” in that.

We as Americans do not live healthy lifestyles. Obesity alone accounts for ten percent of healthcare costs directly, and a much larger portion of it indirectly. We fail to eat our fruits and vegetables that contain the nutrition we need to prevent cancer and other diseases. Poor lifestyle choices equates to a higher demand for healthcare, and once again higher costs. The Wall Street Journal wrote, “The prevalence of obesity rose 37% between 1998 and 2006....Obese people spent 42% more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006.” In encouraging people to choose healthier lifestyles we must provide the right incentives. Insurance companies can do this by offering discounts to those who exercise and eat their fruits and vegetables. On the other hand, by the government establishing a public option in which one can receive coverage at minimal cost to himself would incentivize continued unhealthy living, which only increases the cost.

Healthcare must be reformed, but we must do it the correct way. If cutting costs and providing healthcare for all is the goal then we must look at ending employer-based insurance. This would allow employees to have an open market and choose their own insurance, establishing real choice and competition. Creating Health Savings Accounts, in which people could roll a percent of their paycheck into a fund used only for healthcare like an IRA, would provide portability and security that we desperately need, without the $1 trillion expense of a public option and squashing innovation. Tort reform will decrease costs significantly by caping malpractice suits. None of these are in the current bills.

obama's incredible threat

2009-12-13T13:14:00.000-08:00

In his address at West Point last Tuesday, President Obama announced the deployment of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan. He also outlined his administration’s war strategy, announcing troop withdrawal beginning July 2011. Through the course of the evening, Obama also addressed liberal and conservative concerns regarding the course of the war.

Explaining the necessity of a 30,000 troop increase, he answered questions from the left regarding the legitimacy of America’s presence there, specifically noting distinctions between this war and Vietnam. Referencing al Qaeda safe havens along the Afghani-Pakistani border, Obama declared that the war in Afghanistan is an issue of national security, and that he did not want Afghanistan to become a hot bed of terrorist activity. President Obama also addressed conservative hesitancy in establishing an exit strategy and timetable for the war, arguing that a timetable will push Afghanistan to step up and assume responsibility.

Yet a major concern remained unanswered: If conditions in Afghanistan remain static or degrade further over the next 18 months, will the armed forces proceed with his strategy and begin withdrawing troops in July 2011? The answer offers insight into the real purpose of the surge and the actual effectiveness of a timetable. If yes, and the plan is to cut and run in 2011, regardless of success, we should withdraw now—suffering fewer losses and achieving the same results. If no, the timetable becomes obsolete. Either national security is the real objective, in which case a retreat would be ineffective and the answer should be no, or national security is not the true objective, and we should not send additional troops.

If the answer is no, however, then Obama’s timetable, becomes an incredible threat—politically opportune now, but irrelevant come 2011. The purpose of the timetable, as stated by Obama, is to provide a sense of urgency, encouraging Afghanistan to begin to take control. Yet Afghanis have no need to rush if the government recognizes that, if it is not prepared in 18 months, American troops will likely remain to safeguard national security. They will not feel the pressure, and the status quo endures.

Obama did reference this briefly. He stated that the number of troops withdrawn will depend on ground conditions, implying that the answer to my question is no, and underscoring his empty promise to withdraw. Let us hope, then, for the security of our nation, that this question need not be answered, and that troops can be safely withdrawn after 18 months of success.

the coming deficit disaster

2009-11-23T21:02:00.000-08:00

a former CBO director writes on the consequences of the current deficit, and how the health care reform will only aggravate this problem.

The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth. They will force upon our children and grandchildren the bill for our overconsumption. Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living. Financing deficits could crowd out exports and harm our international competitiveness, as we can already see happening with the large borrowing we are doing from competitors like China.

At what point, some financial analysts ask, do rating agencies downgrade the United States? When do lenders price additional risk to federal borrowing, leading to a damaging spike in interest rates? How quickly will international investors flee the dollar for a new reserve currency? And how will the resulting higher interest rates, diminished dollar, higher inflation, and economic distress manifest itself? Given the president's recent reception in China—friendly but fruitless—these answers may come sooner than any of us would like.

full article

2009-11-23T13:04:00.001-08:00

losing america

2009-11-05T20:01:00.000-08:00

i really should have a direct link to walter williams' home page. once again, he is exactly right, this time on the moral authority of the US government.

That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not. What Congress does have is the brute force to enforce compliance with their unconstitutional acts.

for full article:
http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/AmericanIdea.htm

losing the war on trade

2009-11-05T17:50:00.000-08:00

Politics aside, President Obama’s heavy tariff on Chinese tires was a bad move. Although tariffs temporarily increase domestic sales and production, establishing trade restrictions cuts jobs. Obama’s decision to enforce a high tariff was an effort to curb the flow of Chinese tires into the U.S. as tire imports from China have tripled over the past five years. The Steelworkers Union claims that this increase has led to the loss of 5000 jobs in the tire industry in the United States. Yet the tariff could cause a trade battle that would hurt employment more than help it.

A tariff is a tax on an imported good. In this particular case it raised the price of tires imported from China by an additional 35% the first year, on top of the 4% tariff on all tires that is already in place. The new tariff takes effect starting September 26 and will last three years, declining by 5 percent each year. A tariff is intended to discourage the purchase of foreign goods, boosting demand for domestic goods and therefore domestic production. And indeed it does. Firms can sell at a higher price, so less-effective domestic producers can stay in the market. This increases domestic production allowing American firms in the tire industry to prosper.

However, with this new tariff there are winners like the tire industry—but there are also losers. A tariff raises the price of tires because consumers can no longer choose between internationally competitive, purchasing tires at the world price. Thus, prices increase, and those who cannot afford the increase will be “squeezed out” of the market, and so American consumers lose. This is called a dead-weight loss, or a loss of surplus that could have been avoided. However, it doesn’t just end with those who no longer buy tires. Higher prices mean consumers do not get as much satisfaction out of their purchase, so even Americans who still buy tires suffer under the trade restriction.

Not only do domestic consumers lose but domestic producers as well. China retaliated a few days after to the tire tariff by announcing an investigation of alleged dumping by the United States of auto parts and chicken parts. Dumping is when a country sells a good to another country at a price lower than the domestic price. A cut back of those exports would decrease domestic production in those industries. In addition to the direct impact from retaliation there is also an indirect impact on production: as our demand for imports declines our demand for net exports rise. This affects the exchange rate, driving it up. This makes the goods the U.S. produces more expensive relative to foreign goods, so our exports fall, causing domestic demand to decrease.

Ironically enough, the cost of saving employment is unemployment. It runs deeper than that, though, because tariffs support inefficient at the expense of more efficient ones. In other words, Obama is making it more costly for our consumers to protect an industry that is more costly to run. In fact, simple geometry shows that the amount gained by the consumers in free trade exceeds the amount producers gain under the tariff to the point where we could compensate workers who lose and still be better off than under a tariff. This is due to the absence of dead-weight losses under free trade, which maximizes welfare.

The worst part is, if China retaliates by imposing a trade restriction rather than hurt it would help them. Because they have a fixed exchange rate they would not suffer the loss of exports from a higher exchange rate, but their exports would increase. Although the United States cannot afford to engage in a trade war, China can. We must end it before it escalates.

If curbing unemployment is really the goal then President Obama missed the mark. Instead of preventing the loss of thousands of jobs he has forced unemployment with trade restrictions. In addition, the tariff is forcing consumers to support inefficient firms with higher prices, reducing the benefit they get from the purchase and squeezing some consumers out of the market entirely. The economic losses from this tariff fall exceed the economic gains. However we must not forget that in a time of economic uncertainty, free trade will expand both production and consumption, boosting our economy more than any stimulus could.

laws vs moral values

2009-10-13T17:00:00.000-07:00

walter williams is spot on again.

A civilized society's first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values. Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.

Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults. When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn't have child-raising "experts" to tell them that "time out" is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.

To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted "Senior Citizen Seating." Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.

You might be tempted to charge, "Williams, you're a prude!" I'd ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled? Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal's office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.

During the 1940s, my family lived in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project. Many families didn't lock doors until late at night, if ever. No one ever thought of installing bars on their windows. Hot, humid summer nights found many people sleeping outside on balconies or lawn chairs. Starting in the '60s and '70s, doing the same in some neighborhoods would have been tantamount to committing suicide. Keep in mind that the 1940s and '50s were a time of gross racial discrimination, high black poverty and few opportunities compared to today. The fact that black neighborhoods were far more civilized at that time should give pause to the excuses of today that blames today's pathology on poverty and discrimination.

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

john cochrane on the fiscal stimulus

2009-09-23T18:12:00.000-07:00

with the recession being declared "nearly over" it would be good to take a look back at what economists said before. john cochrane write a great article on the aftermath of the fiscal stimulus. he notes that as the economy improves banks with stop sitting on their reserves which will shoot up the money supply even more than the $1 trillion stimulus package. we'll have to to wait and see what happens when that occurs.

the real cost of healthcare

2009-09-15T17:50:00.000-07:00

Lawmakers are currently attempting to pass legislation that will lower costs. A simple lesson in economics will show how their reform will actually increase costs. There are three main reasons why healthcare costs are increasing: the care is getting better, we are getting richer, and the patients are getting unhealthier. The reform, rather than fixing each of these, actually exaggerates these reasons.

If you compare the miracle of modern medicine to its grandfather of decades ago you will notice the drastic improvement due to technology and innovation. Better coverage comes at higher costs; to think that hospitals should be able to operate at the same cost today as they did even ten years ago, with all the technological advances and high-tech equipment they have access to now, is madness. Better care comes at a higher cost. Cutting costs would stifle innovation in the field of medicine. It inherently implies lowering the rate of return on investment of pharmaceuticals and machinery, meaning that people would not get much back for medical breakthroughs. This lack of incentive is enough kill innovation, decreasing the quality of our healthcare for all. The same goes for not just capital but also those in the profession, as salaries are slashed in an attempt to cut costs. Attempting to cut costs through this reform can only lead to decreased quality.

Healthcare has an income elasticity of 1.6, classifying it as a luxury good. This means that as people’s incomes increase they will spend a higher percentage of their income on healthcare. As I’m sure you have noticed America is continuing to get richer with GDP, and thus income, increasing about 3.3 percent a year. Thus, as our incomes grow over time the demand for quality healthcare is going to increase as well, driving up the price. This is not the fault of greedy insurance companies, but merely the work of the invisible hand. The reform would force every American to have insurance. Mandating that all citizens buy insurance would drive up the price of private insurance because of increased demand, crowding out those who could have afforded it but no longer can. This squeezes more people out of private insurance into the public option. There is no “choice” or “competition” in that.

We as Americans do not live healthy lifestyles. Obesity alone accounts for ten percent of healthcare costs directly, and a much larger portion of it indirectly. We fail to eat our fruits and vegetables that contain the nutrition we need to prevent cancer and other diseases. Poor lifestyle choices equates to a higher demand for healthcare, and once again higher costs. The Wall Street Journal wrote, “The prevalence of obesity rose 37% between 1998 and 2006....Obese people spent 42% more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006.” In encouraging people to choose healthier lifestyles we must provide the right incentives. Insurance companies can do this by offering discounts to those who exercise and eat their fruits and vegetables. On the other hand, by the government establishing a public option in which one can receive coverage at minimal cost to himself would incentivize continued unhealthy living, which only increases the cost.

Healthcare must be reformed, but we must do it the correct way. If cutting costs and providing healthcare for all is the goal then we must look at ending employer-based insurance. This would allow employees to have an open market and choose their own insurance, establishing real choice and competition. Creating Health Savings Accounts in which people could roll a percent of their paycheck into a fund used only for healthcare would provide portability and security that we desperately need, without the $1 trillion expense of a public option. Tort reform will decrease costs significantly. None of these are in the current bills.

how stupid can you be?!

2009-02-28T19:11:00.000-08:00

We have recently finished the Bush era, the man known as the dumbest president ever. Now we have entered the era of the One who will save the economy and the nation. How does he propose to do that? With a $3.6 trillion budget and a $1.75 trillion deficit for the year 2009. How stupid can you be?! That’s precisely the change we can believe in. Anyone with any sense knows this will not help. To pay for this he is going to heavily increase taxes on the wealthy, something we all knew was going to happen, and continue to give “tax cuts” (which are really just tax credits, don’t get me started) to the middle class. So instead of having John Edward’s “two Americas” we will be left with one America, an America in which everyone is poor. If you don’t know why this is, take any class in economics. I will try to explain briefly.
Taxes have a negative effect on welfare. Duh. It works two ways, though. When a tax is put in place it raises the price artificially for the consumer, but for the producer the revenue received is lower. So on one hand someone is getting less money for someone paying money. Some of that money goes toward government revenue, but a large portion of welfare is lost. This is called a deadweight loss. The bigger the tax, the bigger the deadweight loss. Also, because the tax jacks up the price it decreases consumption because less people are willing to buy it at the higher price.
The second way in which it cripples the economy is by production. Because businesses receive less revenue for the same product they lose incentive to produce. When there is no incentive to produce, production will cease because people respond to incentives. Not only that, but business will be unable to get enough revenue to continue production, and will be forced out of the market. The way to create jobs in America during a time of economic crisis is not to destroy businesses with heavy taxes. Businesses, not government, supply jobs. And so the downward spiral continues, preventing the economy from recovering and sending this nation into the abyss of poverty.
So here we are, the president of our nation whom we the people elected, extending the current recession with not only Keynesian policies, but socialist Keynesian policies. I have explained how this is bad and how it destroys the economy. If you are still not convinced, please do some research, take a class, anything to get you out of your ignorance! How stupid can you be?!
To those of you who are convinced, my main concern is simply that no one cares. We look around and see what is going on, making note that the $827 billion “stimulus” package (which won’t work. Keynes died decades ago) was signed into law, but doing nothing more than sitting back and complaining about it. How stupid can you be?! So you may ask, “What can we do?” My initial response is to take the “democratic” approach and write to your congressmen, but we say how well that worked for the bailout bill last year. Do you honestly think that anything short of a revolution will really accomplish what we need? Washington has become a place where self-proclaimed heroes sit around and determine how to spend our money. What right do they have to my money? Nothing is going to change that until we show them they don’t have that right. Thoreau was thrown into prison for refuses to pay taxes which supported slave trade. How much different is that today? They don’t have nearly enough cells to contain every citizen who feels the way I feel. The fact of the matter is we must act. We must do something to show that we are still in power. “People should not fear their government, government should fear its people.” Now is the time to strike fear into the heart of Washington, to rise up against the tyranny that is, and is to be! What we need is another Boston Tea Party, a revolution!

the price of liberty

2008-12-22T21:36:00.000-08:00

The words “Give me liberty or give me death” once rang in the hearts of Americans, commemorating the price that their forbearers placed on liberty: their own life. Liberty was so valuable to them that an actually price could not describe it. They fought against all odds to establish a nation in which individual rights were protected, in which the government existed for them and not in which they existed for the government. They lived in an age of tyranny, and their sole desire was to take back their God-given inalienable rights which had been usurped by the throne.

Times have changed. Washington has been able to put a price on liberty: 7.4 trillion dollars. At least, that is the price they are willing to pay at the expense of our liberty. And the number is increasing daily. For those who cannot fathom the magnitude of this number, $7.4 trillion equates to half the GDP of this great country. If distributed evenly is comes out to $25,000 per person, man, woman and child. So the question is raised. Are you willing to sell your liberty for $25,000?

Here’s the catch: along with giving up your liberty, you also give up the $25,000. Instead of selling your liberty to get money, you sell your liberty to GIVE money. That is the dilemma in which our tyrannical democracy has placed us. Washington has trampled all over the will of the people and extended its authority where it doesn’t belong. The government is using us, sacrificing our liberty to satisfy the demands of lobbyists. No longer do we live in a society in which we must earn our money, but it can easily be looted by the government. The days of Robin Hood, of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, have ended. We have entered the days of stealing from the poor and industrious to support the incompetent; when mediocrity is celebrated and prosperity punished. Trust me, it won’t stop at $7.4 trillion, and it won’t end with financial groups and the auto industry. And what are you doing about it? Do you even care?

Many of us have heard, and were outraged, about a $700 billion bail-out, writing or calling our representatives. When the bill passed, however, the calls ended. Despite the fact that they acted not only against the will of the majority but also against the founding principles of this nation, we the people became complacent. Where was the outrage AFTER the bill had been passed? when Congress sent a blank check to the Secretary of the Treasury?

The price of getting our liberty for our founders was their life. The price of giving up our liberty for us is our apathy. Because of our lack of concern regarding the infringements of the government into our lives and our wallet, the liberty that was hard-earned and prized is slipping through our fingers, and shackles are being slipped onto our wrists. No longer do we live in an age in which one can rise from the shambles of poverty into the halls of prosperity on account of his mind. Washington is damning us. No longer do we live in an age in which one controls his own destiny. Government power and autonomy cannot coexist. So as Washington expands its financial authority our liberty diminishes.

What price do you put on liberty? What are you willing to pay? Do you stand with the patriots at the time of the War for Independence and value liberty as an inalienable right; that it would be better to die for freedom than to live in bondage? Or do you stand with the “patriots” of today, when paying higher taxes is a “duty” to help those in “need” so that government spending can be wasted on putting the economy on artificial life support? Where is the outrage, the same outrage that carried us through the Revolution against a tyrant?! The problem we the people face today is not much different than the problem this nation faced at its birth.

We must take a stand while we still have a chance! They may take away our money, but they cannot take away our voice! Rise up and be heard! Do not let your apathy be the price of your liberty!

"money is the root of all good"

2008-11-21T09:57:00.000-08:00

this comes from ayn rand's book atlas shrugged.

Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil – and he's the typical product of money."

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out."

original source: Part II, Section 2, pages 387-391 of the paperback

capitalism and the financial crisis

2008-11-06T09:35:00.000-08:00

another article by walter williams

There has always been contempt for economic liberty. Historically, our nation was an important, not complete, exception. It took the calamity of the Great Depression to bring about today's level of restrictions on economic liberty. Now we have another government-created calamity that has the prospect of moving us even further away from economic liberty with the news media and pundits creating the perception that the current crisis can be blamed on capitalism. We see comments such as those in the New York Times: "The United States has a culture that celebrates laissez-faire capitalism as the economic ideal. Or, "For 30 years, the nation's political system has been tilted in favor of business deregulation and against new rules." Another says, "Since 1997, Mr. Brown (the British Prime Minister) has been a powerful voice behind the Labor Party's embrace of an American-style economic philosophy that was light on regulation."

First, let's establish what laissez-faire capitalism is. Broadly defined, it is an economic system based on private ownership and control over of the means of production. Under laissez-faire capitalism, government activity is restricted to the protection of the individual's rights against fraud, theft and the initiation of physical force.

Professor George Reisman has written a very insightful article on his blog titled "The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis." (http://georgereisman.com/blog/2008/10/myth-that-laissez-faire-is-responsible.html) You can decide whether we have in an unregulated laissez-faire economy. There are 15 cabinet departments, nine of which control various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA.

Here's my question to you: Can one be sane and at the same time hold that ours is an unregulated laissez-faire economy? Better yet, tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed. You say, "Williams, there's a reason for this government control." Yes, there's a reason for everything but that does not change the fact that there is massive government control over our economy.

It is incorrect to say that laissez-faire or free markets are unregulated. There is ruthless regulation, but it's not by government. Take the mortgage industry. In the absence of government interference, it is unlikely that a lender would extend a mortgage to a person with a poor credit history, making no down payment, and providing no verifiable employment history. But under the pressure of the government's Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up or guaranteeing such mortgages, a lender will.

When businesses make unwise decisions that lead to bankruptcy, their assets are sold off to someone else who might be able to put them to wiser use. Government bailouts give businesses a reprieve that the market wouldn't give them. Bailouts have at least two effects. They permit continued unwise use of resources and it creates what economists call moral hazard, the expectation of future bailouts and others hopping on the bailout wagon.

The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low and the congressional and White House market interference in the name of more home ownership. In the clamor for more regulation over our financial institutions, has anybody bothered to ask whether people in government know what they're doing?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

progressive stagnation

2008-10-30T00:37:00.000-07:00

Freedom is a universal value. Our human instinct is to be free, to act according to our own will, our own reason. This is the key to progression, for if we are not able to be agents unto ourselves there is no way for us to learn. We progress through a pattern of choices and consequences - reasoning, acting, seeing the result of that action, and drawing a conclusion from it. If we are not autonomous, either through an inability to choose or inability to receive a proper consequence, then we cannot progress. We cannot reach our full potential both as an individual and collectively as a society. Autonomy is the only way to allow each individual the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it is the government’s duty to maximize autonomy. But it is our duty to live autonomously. Even if the government was limited and granted us autonomy, if we do not take it and live according to our own will, it does us no good and we fail to break free.

In every choice there is an inherent consequence, which is a natural result of the choice. You cannot have one without the other. In fact, in many cases our expectations of the consequences sway our decisions. Often we choose to do something because we desire the consequence and not because we desire the choice itself. On the other hand, many of the mistakes we make come because of we don’t take into account the consequence of that choice. If we make decisions based on consequences, then when the consequences are taken away our decisions are skewed. In other words, when proper consequences do not follow its associated choices we really don’t have the ability to choose.

Thus, justice is required for freedom. Justice can be defined as, “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” There cannot be freedom unless we receive a just reward for our choice, whether good or bad. Our government was created to “establish justice” as well as “secure the blessings of liberty.” We can see that the two are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually inclusive. Freedom cannot exist in an unjust society, for justice is the foundation of freedom.

To preserve justice, and therefore freedom, sometimes it is necessary for government to act. The government is a common judge, establishing laws that prevent people from obstructing the rights of others. When an individual violates those laws, the just consequence would be to punish him, making government action requisite. If they fail to act justice is not met and freedom is destroyed. However, there are two kinds of laws: civil laws and natural laws. Although the government must executive justice in regard to civil law, it has no authority to act on violations of natural law. In fact, if the government attempts to execute “justice” on violators of natural law it inhibits the natural consequences to follow, thereby eliminating justice and dissolving freedom. In order for us to become a free and autonomous society we must stop the government from trespassing on natural consequences and limit it to acting only on violations of civil law.

Take the example of “spreading the wealth.” In a free and just society, hard work and innovation (good choice) should be rewarded with a higher salary (good consequence). Then, those that receive high wages to have the opportunity to voluntary help those around them (good choice), which will be rewarded with happiness (good consequence). Yet when those that succeed are heavily taxed, the good consequences for good choices are taken away. Where is the justice in that? Not only that, but they are “forced,” in a sense, to help those around them. It is no longer a matter of choice, and so because there is no choice there cannot be a consequence. Thus, motivation to do good and help others is diminished. The rich should not be forced into supporting the failing social programs of the nation, but rather should be persuaded to make the choice on their own. This is the only just way, and therefore the only way to preserve freedom.

Now take the other side, that of the poor. Through the government attempting to help them, they are done a disservice. The real solution is to allow them to face the natural consequences of their choices. This gives them an incentive to fix the problem and progress, rather than numbing the pain, giving them an incentive to NOT progress. Granted, everyone passes through rough times. There are some extenuating circumstances in which people truly need help. I will concede to this fact. However, the government has neither the authority nor the obligation to step in because this is not a violation of civil law. It remains our responsibility and our opportunity as citizens of the United States to help those around us in a way that will truly lift them up, put them on their own two feet, and get them going. This is much more than any government-run social program can do, and the rewards are much greater. Those who need help, while still feeling the just consequences, have enough support from their friends, family, and neighbors. Those who help, through making a good choice, receive a just reward.

With government intervention all that is lost. The poor remain poor with no incentive to leave, and the rich become poor to pay for the poor, who remain poor. We see a gradual progression toward stagnation. And that’s not the worst of it. With it comes the defeat of justice, a loss of personal responsibility, and a depletion of autonomy.

Maximizing autonomy should be the goal of the government. Men are free, and ought to be free in every aspect of life. At the same time we must take into consideration that no one has the right to take another’s freedom. Thus we see that our freedom is not supreme but there are some limitations to it. In order to secure this freedom government was established. This is the sole purpose of government: to allow all men the opportunity to exercise their freedom to the biggest extent possible while at the same time safeguarding it from being infringed by others. It was never established as a tool to “help” the underprivileged. That has been, is, and always should be our social responsibility. Shoving that to the government is nothing more than shirking from our duty.

The only way to progress is by maximizing autonomy, by allowing all men the opportunity to choose. But when all is said and done responsibility comes down to us. Even if the government tried to restore autonomy to the people, the people must receive that autonomy. If we continue to live in manner in which we run from responsibility we cannot achieve a state of progression, no matter what the government does. We the people must choose to act. Choose now to live autonomously. Choose now to help those around you. Take back your autonomy if the government won’t give it to you. Just as important as a political revolution is a social revolution, in which we the people rise up and act on our own accord, not depending on the government to tell us what to do. This is the only way to break free from the shackles of stagnation that has been placed upon us by the tyrannical democracy. The only way we can get back that autonomy is by starting now to live autonomously.

the tyrannical democracy

2008-10-21T09:18:00.000-07:00

In the year 1776 a declaration was written that would change the world. It contained the principles that would be the foundation of the most influential political experiment of all time. It also contains the parameters of a legitimate government: one that is established to secure our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).

That 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 to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Herein lies the right of revolution for the American War for Independence. The monarch had become a tyrant, not securing these rights but destroying them, which justified our fight for liberty. But herein lies our current paradox as well. When the Revolutionary War was won a republican form of government was established, a government of the people, for the people, by the people. In other words, we the people are the government. So what happens when this republican form of government becomes illegitimate? How do we obtain our right and revolution, and against whom do we revolt?

The problem with democracy is that it tends to expand power, even more so than a monarchy. The expansion of power doesn’t come through a dictatorial takeover, but is a gradual process in which the people willingly delegate more and more of their personal liberty to a higher institution, hoping that in giving it power they will be given something in return. Here we see the fall of democracy, and its inescapable destiny to become a tyranny by the majority of the people, oppressing the minority and snatching the liberty of all.

Think about it. Every four years presidential candidates establish a party platform, creating an agenda of things they promise to the American people. When one of the candidates wins and takes office, they do so under the false pretense that they have received a “mandate” from the people to make sure their agenda gets pushed through Congress, and Congress should support the president’s agenda because it is the “will of people”. But since when is the president responsible for legislation? Isn’t that Congresses line of authority? The president has become an office of continued unconstitutionality. If you take a look through history you can see how the president has gradually usurped power from Congress, violating the checks and balanced put in place to limit the government from doing more than securing our inalienable rights. As of recent years, though, we can see that the government has clearly overstepped its bounds.

It is the sad case that power, once acquired, is seldom returned. We have seen over the past century the unconstitutional acquisition of executive power, and none of it has returned back to the people. Remember, in a republican form of government we the people should lead. Except for the powers mandated in the Constitution it is our power to keep. Today’s presidential mandate becomes tomorrow’s presidential power. Add that up over 200 years and we are staring into the face of a tyrant.

The reason why the government has been able to seize so much power from the people lies in valuing our individual self-interests over our individual inalienable rights. We have become a people who, instead of looking at which candidate will better preserve the Constitution, looks to a candidate who will give us more or what we want. We have the idea of “I will vote for the candidate whose unconstitutional agenda benefits me the most.” The quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” comes to mind. But we don’t think like that anymore. We are too concerned about what we can get from the government that we are forgetting what we lose: the principles that founded this nation upon which lies our success. If we abandon those we are left to fail. By the time we wake up and realize the monster we have created it will be too late. The power will be too much. We are setting ourselves up for the worst political disaster in the nation of the greatest political success. We will be unable to revolt, for we the people are the government in the sense that we determine who leads, and we cannot revolt against ourselves.

Therefore, a revolution must occur within us. The only way to fix this problem is to go to the source of the problem. We the people must change the way we govern, or rather the way we elect officials. We must accept responsibility for our actions and stop trying to pin everything on the government. In order to see the true rights we should have we must step outside our self interest. The government was not instituted as a good tool that should benefit the majority of the people. In the words of Ronald Reagan, “The government is not the solution to the problem; the government is the problem.” Or “That government which governs least governs best.” We don’t need to government to tell us what to do. I believe that we the people can act on our own will to help those around us, to fulfill our social responsibility. I believe that we the people have the ability within ourselves to cooperate with each other. I believe in the principles of limited government that founded this great nation, and I believe that we the people can rise up and stop this tyrant! Now is the time to act. Now is the age of our right to revolution.

obama's 95% illusion

2008-10-15T21:42:00.000-07:00

this is an opinion article found in the wall street journal 13 october, 2008. author unkown.

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

destroying liberty

2008-10-09T14:45:00.000-07:00

this is an article by walter williams, a professor of economics at george mason university. in it, he hits key points spot on:

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind's history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind's normal state of affairs.

Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people's money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another.

According to a Washington Post article (6/22/05), there were nearly 35,000 highly paid registered lobbyists in Washington in 2004 who spent $2.1 billion lobbying the White House, Congress and various agencies on behalf of various interest groups. Political action committees, private donors and companies give billions of dollars to political campaigns. My question to you: Do you think that these people are spending billions of dollars to assist presidents and congressmen to better perform their sworn oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? If you do, you're a fine candidate for a straitjacket. For the most part, the money is being spent to get politicians and government officials to use their coercive power to create a favor or special privilege for one American at the expense of some other American.

If we Americans didn't give Washington such enormous control over our lives, I doubt whether there would be 10 percent of the money currently spent on lobbying and campaign contributions. This enormous control that Congress has over our lives also goes a long way toward explaining much of the government corruption that we see in Washington.

If the average American were asked whether he wishes to return to mankind's normal state of affairs featured by arbitrary abuse, control and government dictates, I am sure he would find such a suggestion repulsive. But if you were to ask, say, the average senior citizen whether Social Security, Medicare and prescription drug subsidies should be continued, he would probably answer yes. The same would be true if you asked a college professor whether higher education should continue to be subsidized, or a farmer or a dairyman whether their products should be subsidized, or a manufacturer whether there should be tariffs and quotas on foreign products that compete with his product. The problem with congressmen producing favors and privileges to all interest groups is that it creates what none of us wants: massive control, numerous dictates and micromanagement of our lives.

There is no question that if one were to ask whether we Americans are moving towards more liberty or more government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter -- more government control over our lives. We might have reached a point where the trend is irreversible and that is a true tragedy for if liberty is lost in America, it will be lost for all times and all places.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com/.