One things many people anticipated in Barack Obama's final days as president was that he would issue a last minute pardon of Hillary Clinton much in the way that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Then people who expected this were surprised when such an event did not happen. Some fans of Hillary Clinton tried to claim this lack of a pardon was based on her having done nothing deserving of a pardon, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Given that the White House is inhabited by a Republican, and therefore the cabinet positions are Republican, and therefore the law enforcement apparatus is Republican, there is a good rason for Hillary Clinton to desire a pardon.
Then why would Barack Obama fail to pardon Hillary Clinton? One thing to consider is that in spite of them being in the same party and working together in the same administration, the two actually have never actually gotten along and actually do not like each other very much. His failure to pardon her could be due to him not wanting to do her any favors, as well as a punishment for her having failed to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.
Barack Obama has been shown that he can be quite petty. His behavior in escalating hostility with Russia is definitely an attempt to make things difficult for Donald Trump as he takes office. His failure to pardon Hillary Clinton could be even more petty than dislike. He could also be setting Hillary Clinton up for the uncomfortable position of being dependent on the good will of Donald Trump, making her dependent on his good will after a particularly vicious campaign. This would have the effect of making sure she behaves during the transition. She could have made this transition more difficult, but instead she had to stay on the good side of first Barack Obama and then Donald Trump. If she does anything to make things difficult for Donald Trump, he could always change his mind on the subject of legal activity against Hillary Clinton. This could be why she has been so completely out of the spot light since her defeat. She had no other choice.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2017
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Obama is the New Biggest Spender
Although the website measuringworth.com does not yet have GPI or GPD data for 2012, the value of Gold for 2012 is ready on Kitco.com. That enables calculations for one measure, but only one measure, for the deficits for President Obama’s first term.
Using constant gold dollars, those who would overspend benefit in appearance from a rising price of gold. The price of gold has risen every year since President Obama has assumed office. That would make any deficits smaller when converted to constant dollars. Even by that measure, President Obama now has the largest deficits of any presidential term.
Measured in 1789 dollars, the gold-weighted dollar values of the deficits are:
Every single president since President Nixon severed the final link between the dollar and gold is included in the list of presidents that have the most unbalanced budgets. Since this is a constant dollar list, that means that these deficits are not impacted by the collapsing dollar.
For all the posturing about how President Obama wanted to fix the financial mess handed to him by President Bush, he has in fact done the opposite. It is no longer true that President Bush is the worst spender. These numbers do not lie. While it is possible to come up with explanations as to why these numbers are what they are, such explanations do not change what the numbers are.
Using constant gold dollars, those who would overspend benefit in appearance from a rising price of gold. The price of gold has risen every year since President Obama has assumed office. That would make any deficits smaller when converted to constant dollars. Even by that measure, President Obama now has the largest deficits of any presidential term.
Measured in 1789 dollars, the gold-weighted dollar values of the deficits are:
| President | Deficit |
| Obama Term 1 | -99,821,590,396.08 |
| Bush Jr Term 1 | -99,776,642,401.45 |
| F Roosevelt 3 | -96,408,875,337.91 |
| Bush Jr Term 2 | -85,474,167,431.44 |
| Bush Sr | -82,665,333,079.60 |
| Clinton Term 1 | -63,508,876,217.31 |
| Reagan Term 2 | -55,620,058,613.77 |
| Nixon | -37,083,571,857.12 |
| Reagan Term 1 | -34,590,184,231.84 |
| Clinton Term 2 | -31,541,432,371.56 |
| Nixon / Ford | -30,632,171,603.66 |
| F Roosevelt / Truman | -30,513,251,062.43 |
| Carter | -25,169,881,466.50 |
Every single president since President Nixon severed the final link between the dollar and gold is included in the list of presidents that have the most unbalanced budgets. Since this is a constant dollar list, that means that these deficits are not impacted by the collapsing dollar.
For all the posturing about how President Obama wanted to fix the financial mess handed to him by President Bush, he has in fact done the opposite. It is no longer true that President Bush is the worst spender. These numbers do not lie. While it is possible to come up with explanations as to why these numbers are what they are, such explanations do not change what the numbers are.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
An Upside to Obama's Victory?
Now that the least important election in the past century is finished, the big question is what does this mean to the liberty movement. Clearly President Obama is no friend to individual liberty, and has no intention on helping the movement in any way. Democrats theoretically support civil liberties, but President Obama has only ever been decent in this area when forced to by his own party.
But given that there was no substantive differences between the two leading candidates, then who won that election scarcely matters to liberty. The only things that matter then are peripheral matters connected to who won and who lost.
According to Austrian Economics, the next four years are going to be rough for the United States. In exactly what way it will be rough is difficult to determine, but that it will be, and that it will be within the next four years.
So what matters is the implications of who will be in office when the collapse occurs. As it turns out this matter is rather critical.
Had Mitt Romney been elected then he would be the one blamed when the collapse occurs. Had he been in office then, because he is a Republican, his free market beliefs would have gotten the blame. That he doesn’t have any free market beliefs won’t matter, Republicans get credit for having free market beliefs even though they don’t. It would be quite parallel to how Herbert Hoover’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 1929 and George W. Bush’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 2008.
Because Barack Obama was elected, his free market beliefs will not be blamed. He is perceived as more socialist, even though he is nothing more than a left Keynesian. The mainstream view is that Barack Obama is at best hostile to the free market.
Also given that the Ryan Plan, which was unrealistic at best, was criticized for having deep cuts when all it did was have is smaller increases, would mean that the budget slashing that would allegedly go on under Republicans would get the blame. Never mind that there would be no budget slashing no matter which one won, the Republican budget slashing would get the blame.
Given that free market beliefs and slashing the budget are two positions that libertarians strongly support, and that Republicans say they support when they do not, the last thing that libertarians would want is those to positions getting the blame for a problem they did not create. Given all of that, as bad as Barack Obama winning is, perhaps there is a silver lining that there would not be had Mitt Romney won.
But given that there was no substantive differences between the two leading candidates, then who won that election scarcely matters to liberty. The only things that matter then are peripheral matters connected to who won and who lost.
According to Austrian Economics, the next four years are going to be rough for the United States. In exactly what way it will be rough is difficult to determine, but that it will be, and that it will be within the next four years.
So what matters is the implications of who will be in office when the collapse occurs. As it turns out this matter is rather critical.
Had Mitt Romney been elected then he would be the one blamed when the collapse occurs. Had he been in office then, because he is a Republican, his free market beliefs would have gotten the blame. That he doesn’t have any free market beliefs won’t matter, Republicans get credit for having free market beliefs even though they don’t. It would be quite parallel to how Herbert Hoover’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 1929 and George W. Bush’s non-existent free market beliefs received the blame for the crash of 2008.
Because Barack Obama was elected, his free market beliefs will not be blamed. He is perceived as more socialist, even though he is nothing more than a left Keynesian. The mainstream view is that Barack Obama is at best hostile to the free market.
Also given that the Ryan Plan, which was unrealistic at best, was criticized for having deep cuts when all it did was have is smaller increases, would mean that the budget slashing that would allegedly go on under Republicans would get the blame. Never mind that there would be no budget slashing no matter which one won, the Republican budget slashing would get the blame.
Given that free market beliefs and slashing the budget are two positions that libertarians strongly support, and that Republicans say they support when they do not, the last thing that libertarians would want is those to positions getting the blame for a problem they did not create. Given all of that, as bad as Barack Obama winning is, perhaps there is a silver lining that there would not be had Mitt Romney won.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
An Uninspired Campaign
The strongest argument that the Republican Party can make in favor of candidate Mitt Romney is that he isn't Barack Obama. He most certainly was not the candidate favored by the Tea Party or many other more conservative Republicans, in spite of efforts to paint him as such. The nomination of Mitt Romney was a fairly decisive defeat of the Tea Party's influence within the Republican Party and a victory for the central leadership over the base.
The strongest argument that the Democratic Party can make in favor of candidate Barack Obama is that he isn't Mitt Romney. He fails to inspire the base, even with his alleged achievements. The strongest argument in favor of Barack Obama is potential judicial appointments, as Mitt Romney would appoint people like John Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare. "Hope and change" makes a good mantra when a candidate is fresh, but not after failing to deliver either for four years.
Small wonder that partisans react so angrily to having it pointed out how little difference there is in this campaign. The standard comparison of "not a dimes worth of difference" is even stronger given just how similar the two candidates really are. Mitt Romney wrote the rough draft of Obamacare, and Barack Obama has shown greater militarism than even George W. Bush.
The cries of "this is the most important election ever" are even louder than before, and yet those cries fail to inspire the base of either party. These cries are meant to convince the reluctant base to come out and vote in spite of, not because of, the candidates that the party is running. They are also a vain attempt to convince third party voters to cross party lines, which sometimes does happen if a candidate is appealing enough. In the 2012 electoral race, it would be hard to describe either candidate as "appealing enough."
It will be interesting to see how a campaign between two unappealing candidates develops. Negative campaigning, trying to appeal to fear in order to bring out the base, will be the only option for both candidates, but ultimately that will reinforce the basic problem that neither candidate is good. It will also be interesting to see how the two parties arrange to negate the opportunity being given to third parties this time around.
The strongest argument that the Democratic Party can make in favor of candidate Barack Obama is that he isn't Mitt Romney. He fails to inspire the base, even with his alleged achievements. The strongest argument in favor of Barack Obama is potential judicial appointments, as Mitt Romney would appoint people like John Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare. "Hope and change" makes a good mantra when a candidate is fresh, but not after failing to deliver either for four years.
Small wonder that partisans react so angrily to having it pointed out how little difference there is in this campaign. The standard comparison of "not a dimes worth of difference" is even stronger given just how similar the two candidates really are. Mitt Romney wrote the rough draft of Obamacare, and Barack Obama has shown greater militarism than even George W. Bush.
The cries of "this is the most important election ever" are even louder than before, and yet those cries fail to inspire the base of either party. These cries are meant to convince the reluctant base to come out and vote in spite of, not because of, the candidates that the party is running. They are also a vain attempt to convince third party voters to cross party lines, which sometimes does happen if a candidate is appealing enough. In the 2012 electoral race, it would be hard to describe either candidate as "appealing enough."
It will be interesting to see how a campaign between two unappealing candidates develops. Negative campaigning, trying to appeal to fear in order to bring out the base, will be the only option for both candidates, but ultimately that will reinforce the basic problem that neither candidate is good. It will also be interesting to see how the two parties arrange to negate the opportunity being given to third parties this time around.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Bain Capital
People within the Obama campaign are making comments about Mitt Romney’s involvement with Bain Capital. It is possible that Mitt Romney is much more heavily involved in his company than previously claimed, and that there may be legal grounds to prosecute Mitt Romney for such. Some even comment that the charges may rise to the level of felony.
The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.
Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.
Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.
Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.
A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.
The question is, if the Obama campaign is confident enough to make these allegations, why is the Obama administration not confident enough to press charges? If there exists sufficient grounds to suspect illegal activity, then there should be sufficient grounds to open an actual investigation into those potential activities.
Of course one could claim that opening up an investigation at this time would be clearly politically motivated. A stronger claim could be made that doing so after the convention, once Mitt Romney is officially the nominee, is politically motivated because to do so then would hamstring the Republican campaign. If an investigation is opened before the primary the Republican Party would have time to recover and potentially select a new candidate.
Another possible interpretation is that those making the claims against Mitt Romney know that sufficient grounds for an investigation do not actually exist, but that the public might become sufficiently convinced that the eventual vote in November can be swayed against him to a degree sufficient that Barack Obama is reelected.
Finally there is a lesser but real chance that there is substance to the accusations, but an actual investigation would not be launched unless it appears that Mitt Romney actually poses a threat to the Obama reelection campaign. Barack Obama won his first office primarily by having his opponents removed from the ballot on technicalities, so this would be in character.
A best case scenario would be if an investigation is launched before the Republican convention, tainting Mitt Romney sufficiently that a new candidate has to be found at the last minute. A sufficiently large number of delegates are either open or stealth supporters of Ron Paul, which would mean he has a very realistic shot at the nomination in that event. Since the Obama campaign is gearing up for a fight with Mitt Romney, this scenario would result in chaos all around. Still, it would be a chaos with a chance of producing a desirable outcome.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
An Economic Bump
A tiny bump of economic good news has supporters of President Obama crowing about how this will guarantee his reelection. The conventional wisdom is that the best chance the Republican Party has of capturing the presidency is by running on the economy.
Although reports conflict on what is actually happening, the official numbers on unemployment have dipped slightly. If the CPI is to be believed, the number has actually dipped under 9% for the first time since 2008.
Running on this meager improvement in the economy would not be a good idea if the goal is to win in November. In spite of statistical improvements and a climbing stock market, these improvements are not reflected in the experience of those outside the government-financial complex. It presents the Obama administration as detached and aloof, disconnected from the concerns of the average American. Ironically that is probably the campaign attack Obama wishes to use against Romney should Romney become the Republican nominee.
The thing to watch is inflation. The inflation that Austrians have been predicting (and Keynesians have laughed because it didn’t instantly appear) is arriving. It is expressing itself most heavily in energy prices at this time, above the rises that would be expected simply from the saber rattling going on. It is also expressing itself in the stock markets, but people consider that to be good when stocks are up.
President Obama will probably win in spite of the economy, not because of the economy. Hyping up his achievements with regards to the economy seems like an odd strategy as a result.
Although reports conflict on what is actually happening, the official numbers on unemployment have dipped slightly. If the CPI is to be believed, the number has actually dipped under 9% for the first time since 2008.
Running on this meager improvement in the economy would not be a good idea if the goal is to win in November. In spite of statistical improvements and a climbing stock market, these improvements are not reflected in the experience of those outside the government-financial complex. It presents the Obama administration as detached and aloof, disconnected from the concerns of the average American. Ironically that is probably the campaign attack Obama wishes to use against Romney should Romney become the Republican nominee.
The thing to watch is inflation. The inflation that Austrians have been predicting (and Keynesians have laughed because it didn’t instantly appear) is arriving. It is expressing itself most heavily in energy prices at this time, above the rises that would be expected simply from the saber rattling going on. It is also expressing itself in the stock markets, but people consider that to be good when stocks are up.
President Obama will probably win in spite of the economy, not because of the economy. Hyping up his achievements with regards to the economy seems like an odd strategy as a result.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Precision Murder
That President Obama has been just as much a hawk as President Bush, if not more so, has been for the last three years a major source of embarrassment to liberals and some progressives. He seemed like the most peaceful of the leading candidates, but to be fair that was in comparison to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Then shortly after he was elected, on the expectation of what he was going to do instead of anything he had actually done, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
And he went on to expand the number of countries that had United States military involvement to include Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as keeping up the military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He did keep his promise to withdraw from Iraq, but only after signaling that he intended to break that promise and keep the troops there indefinitely and thereby forcing the Iraqi government to force a withdrawal. Plus he continued the saber rattling against Iran.
So how is a liberal or progressive to cope with this embarrassment? Apparently the effort is to say that Obama's use of precision weapons somehow makes his interventions morally superior. The argument is that Bush carpet bombed from B-52s while Obama is very precise and surgical with his use of drone warfare.
Of course this overlooks how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs emergency response teams from his previous bombing runs, and how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs funeral processions that result from his previous bombing runs.
Because Obama's murder of innocent civilians is allegedly so much less indiscriminate than Bush's murder of innocent civilians, it is considered crude and unenlightened to say that the murder of innocent civilians by Obama is morally equivalent to the murder of innocent civilians by Bush.
There is one problem with that analysis: innocent civilians are still being killed either way. If a person murders an innocent, it doesn't matter if he used a chain saw or a scalpel, and it doesn't matter if he carefully selected the innocent rather than picking one at random. It also doesn’t matter if he killed two or ten. The person is still a murderer. Obama is still morally equivalent to Bush, and both are war criminals.
And he went on to expand the number of countries that had United States military involvement to include Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as keeping up the military activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He did keep his promise to withdraw from Iraq, but only after signaling that he intended to break that promise and keep the troops there indefinitely and thereby forcing the Iraqi government to force a withdrawal. Plus he continued the saber rattling against Iran.
So how is a liberal or progressive to cope with this embarrassment? Apparently the effort is to say that Obama's use of precision weapons somehow makes his interventions morally superior. The argument is that Bush carpet bombed from B-52s while Obama is very precise and surgical with his use of drone warfare.
Of course this overlooks how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs emergency response teams from his previous bombing runs, and how Obama is precise and surgical when he bombs funeral processions that result from his previous bombing runs.
Because Obama's murder of innocent civilians is allegedly so much less indiscriminate than Bush's murder of innocent civilians, it is considered crude and unenlightened to say that the murder of innocent civilians by Obama is morally equivalent to the murder of innocent civilians by Bush.
There is one problem with that analysis: innocent civilians are still being killed either way. If a person murders an innocent, it doesn't matter if he used a chain saw or a scalpel, and it doesn't matter if he carefully selected the innocent rather than picking one at random. It also doesn’t matter if he killed two or ten. The person is still a murderer. Obama is still morally equivalent to Bush, and both are war criminals.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Hail Caesar
From a constitutional point of view, every single war waged by the United States after World War Two was unconstitutional and therefore illegal. None of them had a proper declaration of war, passed by congress.
The federal government has given itself some cover by issuing various declarations and authorizations that fall short of an actual declaration of war. Additionally the War Powers Act, also unconstitutional, gave the President the authority to wage war without congressional approval if the war was under sixty days in duration.
None of these legalistic covers actually follow the constitution, but at least they have provided a method by which elected officials can assure the public that everything is being done properly.
Even when President Bush lied the country into war with Iraq, he used an Authorization for the Use of Force as his authority to send troops in. But that principle has escaped President Obama.
Obama has added a war with Libya to the long list of wars the United States is involved in. He claimed authority under the unconstitutional War Powers Act to initiate hostilities. And then the sixty day limitation passed, and the war did not end. President Obama still does not seek congressional approval.
And what was the reaction of congress? The House of Representatives passed a resolution rebuking the President, but it failed to halt funding for the Libya War. The one meaningful power the congress retained for itself - funding - is the one power that congress lacks the will to use.
The only thing left is for President Obama to appoint a horse to the Senate. "Hail Caesar" was the cry that brought down the Roman Republic. Will we hear a similar cry with regards to Obama?
The federal government has given itself some cover by issuing various declarations and authorizations that fall short of an actual declaration of war. Additionally the War Powers Act, also unconstitutional, gave the President the authority to wage war without congressional approval if the war was under sixty days in duration.
None of these legalistic covers actually follow the constitution, but at least they have provided a method by which elected officials can assure the public that everything is being done properly.
Even when President Bush lied the country into war with Iraq, he used an Authorization for the Use of Force as his authority to send troops in. But that principle has escaped President Obama.
Obama has added a war with Libya to the long list of wars the United States is involved in. He claimed authority under the unconstitutional War Powers Act to initiate hostilities. And then the sixty day limitation passed, and the war did not end. President Obama still does not seek congressional approval.
And what was the reaction of congress? The House of Representatives passed a resolution rebuking the President, but it failed to halt funding for the Libya War. The one meaningful power the congress retained for itself - funding - is the one power that congress lacks the will to use.
The only thing left is for President Obama to appoint a horse to the Senate. "Hail Caesar" was the cry that brought down the Roman Republic. Will we hear a similar cry with regards to Obama?
Friday, April 01, 2011
Double Dip is a Lie
The failure of the economy to recover after the collapse in 2007 has become so evident that nobody can deny it any longer. This creates an interesting dilemma for Keynesians who have spent the whole time since Obama was sworn in predicting an imminent recovery.
It is true that, due to a quirk of accounting, technically the recession ended already. Government spending shot up in response to the downturn. Unfortunately government spending is included in the GDP, so therefore the GDP went up as a result of government spending increasing faster than the rest of the economy was declining. Since "recession" is defined as consecutive quarters of economic decline, any increase in GDP is considered to be the end of a recession.
Unlike "recession," the term "depression" has no exact definition and is usually considered to be enduring high unemployment. This has enabled mainstream economists to deny that the economy of the United States is in such a state due to the ways unemployment is disguised by government employment.
But using the government to artificially inflate the economy is highly unsustainable. At best it is temporary; at worst it makes the economy far worse due to the attempt. The current situation is not “at best” and the economy is rapidly deteriorating.
Since the economic signals are so bad that it is becoming impossible to ignore. That is why all economists dedicated to the mainstream are calling it a “double dip”. Those on the right side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Obama, while those on the left side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Bush.
Libertarians know that it is not a whole new recession. They know that it is a continuance and a worsening of the current plight facing the United States economy. For tactical reasons it is important to correct everyone who says that this is a whole new economic downturn.
It is true that, due to a quirk of accounting, technically the recession ended already. Government spending shot up in response to the downturn. Unfortunately government spending is included in the GDP, so therefore the GDP went up as a result of government spending increasing faster than the rest of the economy was declining. Since "recession" is defined as consecutive quarters of economic decline, any increase in GDP is considered to be the end of a recession.
Unlike "recession," the term "depression" has no exact definition and is usually considered to be enduring high unemployment. This has enabled mainstream economists to deny that the economy of the United States is in such a state due to the ways unemployment is disguised by government employment.
But using the government to artificially inflate the economy is highly unsustainable. At best it is temporary; at worst it makes the economy far worse due to the attempt. The current situation is not “at best” and the economy is rapidly deteriorating.
Since the economic signals are so bad that it is becoming impossible to ignore. That is why all economists dedicated to the mainstream are calling it a “double dip”. Those on the right side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Obama, while those on the left side of the Keynesian spectrum are blaming Bush.
Libertarians know that it is not a whole new recession. They know that it is a continuance and a worsening of the current plight facing the United States economy. For tactical reasons it is important to correct everyone who says that this is a whole new economic downturn.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Libya
In the past ten years many people have learned a very hard lesson about military entanglements in the Middle East. An increasing number of people want to end the wars there, and for a variety of reasons. Some are opposed to the financial cost, some are swayed by Just War theory, some because the two major wars (as well as the minor ones) have had too great a cost in human life, some because the war was never actually declared, and some for a combination of reasons. Some people who were initially in favor of invading Afghanistan and Iraq have even turned against those wars.
On the other hand, since January 19, 2009, some who had taken an opposition position on the war turned out to be in favor, provided that the right people were in charge.
For the political leadership of the United States, nothing has been learned in the 10 years that the United States has been in an undeclared war against various countries that just happen to be key countries in the oil and gas industry. They still believe that a simple invasion to support some side will quickly achieve favorable results.
Of course there are some differences from the earlier wars of a decade ago. Obama, unlike Bush, is careful to get as many approvals from as many different international bodies as he can, in order to give proper window dressing to yet another intervention in another country that just happens to be an oil producing country. But like Bush, Obama failed to get the one approval mandated by the constitution.
True, Libya produces far less than Saudi Arabia or Iraq, as defenders of this conflict will point out, but as all economists know all activity takes place on the margin and any change in Libya’s output impacts prices throughout the entire oil market.
At this point, in proper Democratic Party militarism form, the initial intervention will be in the form of No-Fly zones, air patrols. It was the same pattern for Clinton in both Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia. Eventually ground troops were sent in to both, with Clinton sending troops in to Bosnia and Bush sending troops in to Iraq.
If Obama holds true to the pattern of other pro-war Democrats, ground troops are only a matter of time. Then the US will be embroiled in yet another war of occupation. In ten years the people have learned, but the political class that claims to represent them haven’t.
On the other hand, since January 19, 2009, some who had taken an opposition position on the war turned out to be in favor, provided that the right people were in charge.
For the political leadership of the United States, nothing has been learned in the 10 years that the United States has been in an undeclared war against various countries that just happen to be key countries in the oil and gas industry. They still believe that a simple invasion to support some side will quickly achieve favorable results.
Of course there are some differences from the earlier wars of a decade ago. Obama, unlike Bush, is careful to get as many approvals from as many different international bodies as he can, in order to give proper window dressing to yet another intervention in another country that just happens to be an oil producing country. But like Bush, Obama failed to get the one approval mandated by the constitution.
True, Libya produces far less than Saudi Arabia or Iraq, as defenders of this conflict will point out, but as all economists know all activity takes place on the margin and any change in Libya’s output impacts prices throughout the entire oil market.
At this point, in proper Democratic Party militarism form, the initial intervention will be in the form of No-Fly zones, air patrols. It was the same pattern for Clinton in both Iraq and in the former Yugoslavia. Eventually ground troops were sent in to both, with Clinton sending troops in to Bosnia and Bush sending troops in to Iraq.
If Obama holds true to the pattern of other pro-war Democrats, ground troops are only a matter of time. Then the US will be embroiled in yet another war of occupation. In ten years the people have learned, but the political class that claims to represent them haven’t.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Bush Never Cut Taxes
Recently there was much discussion on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans and Democrats were both giving President Bush credit for cutting taxes when president, and Republicans were accusing the Democrats and President Obama of trying to raise taxes.
Leaving aside the fact that the tax cuts were actually the result of hundreds of congressmen in addition to President Bush and giving him credit, and leaving aside the debate over whether the expiration of the tax cuts constitute a tax increase there is still one big problem with the whole debate. Under President Bush taxes never went down. President Bush never cut taxes.
That is because as any Austrian economist can tell you, Total Taxes are always equal to Total Spending. It is true that some taxes were cut under President Bush, but that only means that other taxes went up even more.
What confuses the average person is that Total Taxes is the sum of Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes. Deficit spending is therefore considered a tax. It can be paid by higher interest rates as the government crowds out other borrowers, or it can be paid by inflation as the government taxes away the wealth of those who hold cash. In both cases value is being transferred from the private sector to the public sector, and that is a tax.
Taxes shot up under President Bush, which is why the Tea Party Movement started in late 2007. The Tea Party movement has always had government spending as a major focus.
Now the debate is coming up as to whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. A portion of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives was based on Tea Party support. If the Republicans raise the debt ceiling, that will be an increase in taxes, which will be a repudiation of the support that got them elected.
Leaving aside the fact that the tax cuts were actually the result of hundreds of congressmen in addition to President Bush and giving him credit, and leaving aside the debate over whether the expiration of the tax cuts constitute a tax increase there is still one big problem with the whole debate. Under President Bush taxes never went down. President Bush never cut taxes.
That is because as any Austrian economist can tell you, Total Taxes are always equal to Total Spending. It is true that some taxes were cut under President Bush, but that only means that other taxes went up even more.
What confuses the average person is that Total Taxes is the sum of Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes. Deficit spending is therefore considered a tax. It can be paid by higher interest rates as the government crowds out other borrowers, or it can be paid by inflation as the government taxes away the wealth of those who hold cash. In both cases value is being transferred from the private sector to the public sector, and that is a tax.
Taxes shot up under President Bush, which is why the Tea Party Movement started in late 2007. The Tea Party movement has always had government spending as a major focus.
Now the debate is coming up as to whether or not the debt ceiling will be raised. A portion of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives was based on Tea Party support. If the Republicans raise the debt ceiling, that will be an increase in taxes, which will be a repudiation of the support that got them elected.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monadnock Valley
One thing that a political party does not want is to be the party in charge during a disaster, especially one that the public considers preventable. An economic downturn is a prime example of this sort of event, where both parties try to take credit for any economic upswing and blame the other for any economic decline.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
As bad as the current economic decline has been, something much worse is on the horizon, something that is preventable assuming even a little bit of political courage. Of course, needing a little bit of political courage is exactly why nothing will be done about the bust of Social Security in 2016. So rather than do anything about it, Obama may be playing to lose.
Now it appears that the Republicans may have caught on to that strategy. The Tea Party may have given the Republicans an unexpected victory, which would add yet one more reason for the mainstream Republican Party to dislike the Tea Party movement. But interestingly enough, before the 2010 victory, Republicans were not talking about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate.
This could be an example of "Play to lose will you? Well then, take this: Candidate Palin."
Of course finding political connections between Palin and Soros adds an interesting twist.
But there is one more outcome if the Republicans have also decided to play to lose in 2012. They could pull a Monadnock Valley.
In "The Fountainhead," a con-man hires Howard Roark to build the Monadnock Valley vacation resort. Nobody can figure out what is wrong with the project until it is completed and starts turning a profit. It turned out that the con-man expected to fail and double sold the stock. If the project had failed he would keep the money from the excess stock sail, but since it succeeded he had to pay $2 in dividends for every $1 in profit.
The con-man chose Howard Roark because conventional wisdom said he was the worst architect, but it turned out that conventional wisdom was wrong he was actually the best architect.
The Republicans may wind up picking a “Monadnock candidate" in the 2012 elections. They may pick a candidate who they expect to lose, but will not only win but be able to handle the economic woes afflicting the nation. They wouldn’t handle then in a way that keeps the elite in their privileged positions, but the problems would be taken care of.
Who would be a "Monadnock candidate" if the Republicans did this? It would have to be someone that conventional wisdom considers to be a poor candidate but has the potential to deliver far more than conventional wisdom could ever anticipate. The list is not large, but it includes Representative Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Governor Gary Johnson. Of course, the Democrats probably have their own "Monadnock candidates" but they will probably not run as Obama will likely be the Democrat candidate in 2012.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Did Obama Play to Lose?
The election put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives and weakened the Democratic majority in the Senate. Commentators, both right and left, are wondering if the influence of the Tea Party was more of a help or a hindrance, given that in the Nevada and Delaware Senate races, the people elected Democrats over Republicans supported by the Tea Party, but overall it was a gain for the Republicans.
But of greater influence was Obama himself. Even the influence of the Tea Party is a derivative of his own influence. And President Obama has been quite a different person from Candidate Obama. When he was a candidate, he played the "Hope and Change" mantra to the fullest, inspiring audiences with the possibilities of what he would accomplish. In many ways he was a blank slate on which people would draw whatever they wanted to see in a presidential candidate.
Upon assuming office, much of the glamor quickly faded. He got mired in the details, and failed to lead his own party in pushing issues favored by his party’s base. Those who are more observant knew that Obama wasn’t a peace candidate, that he only appeared that way because he was running against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain, and those two were so militaristic that anyone would appear peaceful compared to them. The genuine peace candidates in the Democratic Party primary washed out quickly, one of them transferring to the Libertarian Party.
Since he assumed office, he has alienated two of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party; feminists, and those who support gay rights.
On the issue of gay rights, it was a Republican appointed judge who overturned California Proposition 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the most successful attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has refused to do anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing Harry Reid to stick it in a bill in such a way to guarantee its failure, and he has refused to move on marriage equality.
On the issue of feminism, it was reported that a woman who was an actual DNC delegate in 2008 reported that she could barely stomach voting for Democrats in the comment section of a New York Times opinion piece. Unable to link to the comment, this paraphrase will have to do to express her complaints:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years
Obama's proudest achievement is a version of Healthcare Reform so watered down and compromised that most progressives are unable to actually claim it as an achievement without holding their nose. As a candidate, he was in favor of Universal Health Care. As president, he was in favor of Single Payer. The bill he signed contained nothing but countless new regulations and a mandate to buy insurance or be fined.
While some analysts are suggesting that the Republican victory in 2010 will result in an Obama reelection in 2012, perhaps that is not Obama’s plan.
The winner of the 2012 election will be in a very bad situation. The economy will have made little improvement at best, and according to current projections the breakeven year for Social Security is 2016. That means whoever wins the 2012 election will have to deal with the fiscal mess of the collapse of Social Security, an unenviable position.
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Primary in 2008, it would have guaranteed a Republican victory in the general election. Continued economic woes as started under President Bush would continue, and the Republicans would have nobody to blame and the public would not blame anyone else, resulting in a Democratic victory in 2012 and leaving them with the "hot potato" as a result.
Instead Obama entered the race to beat Hillary, and then went on to use popular dissatisfaction with the status quo and Republican leadership to win the presidential race in 2008. By then failing to achieve anything, and giving the country laughable examples of attempts to fix the economy, by alienating his own base by failing to lead, he may be working to ensure a Republican victory in 2012 and thus leave them with the upcoming financial catastrophe.
One does not succeed in politics by only thinking in the short term. The leadership of both parties know this, and have to think beyond the next election even if those who are in office seldom think that far ahead.
But of greater influence was Obama himself. Even the influence of the Tea Party is a derivative of his own influence. And President Obama has been quite a different person from Candidate Obama. When he was a candidate, he played the "Hope and Change" mantra to the fullest, inspiring audiences with the possibilities of what he would accomplish. In many ways he was a blank slate on which people would draw whatever they wanted to see in a presidential candidate.
Upon assuming office, much of the glamor quickly faded. He got mired in the details, and failed to lead his own party in pushing issues favored by his party’s base. Those who are more observant knew that Obama wasn’t a peace candidate, that he only appeared that way because he was running against Hillary Clinton and later John McCain, and those two were so militaristic that anyone would appear peaceful compared to them. The genuine peace candidates in the Democratic Party primary washed out quickly, one of them transferring to the Libertarian Party.
Since he assumed office, he has alienated two of the traditional bases of the Democratic Party; feminists, and those who support gay rights.
On the issue of gay rights, it was a Republican appointed judge who overturned California Proposition 8, and it was a Republican plaintiff who launched the most successful attack on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Obama has refused to do anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell, allowing Harry Reid to stick it in a bill in such a way to guarantee its failure, and he has refused to move on marriage equality.
On the issue of feminism, it was reported that a woman who was an actual DNC delegate in 2008 reported that she could barely stomach voting for Democrats in the comment section of a New York Times opinion piece. Unable to link to the comment, this paraphrase will have to do to express her complaints:
*misogynistic tactics used against Clinton in the 2008 campaign (which apparently still lurks unhappily in some women's memories)
*freely slung accusations of racism to anyone who does not support Obama past or present
*democratic/liberal assertions that Islam is religion of peace, while, to any western woman's perspective, it is polluted by the subjugation and abuse of women
*reproductive rights no longer hold the sway over female voters that they once did, either because they believe them to be ironclad or they have developed pro-life leanings to whatever modest degree
*Democrats have done little more for women than have Republicans in the past 30+ years
Obama's proudest achievement is a version of Healthcare Reform so watered down and compromised that most progressives are unable to actually claim it as an achievement without holding their nose. As a candidate, he was in favor of Universal Health Care. As president, he was in favor of Single Payer. The bill he signed contained nothing but countless new regulations and a mandate to buy insurance or be fined.
While some analysts are suggesting that the Republican victory in 2010 will result in an Obama reelection in 2012, perhaps that is not Obama’s plan.
The winner of the 2012 election will be in a very bad situation. The economy will have made little improvement at best, and according to current projections the breakeven year for Social Security is 2016. That means whoever wins the 2012 election will have to deal with the fiscal mess of the collapse of Social Security, an unenviable position.
Had Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Primary in 2008, it would have guaranteed a Republican victory in the general election. Continued economic woes as started under President Bush would continue, and the Republicans would have nobody to blame and the public would not blame anyone else, resulting in a Democratic victory in 2012 and leaving them with the "hot potato" as a result.
Instead Obama entered the race to beat Hillary, and then went on to use popular dissatisfaction with the status quo and Republican leadership to win the presidential race in 2008. By then failing to achieve anything, and giving the country laughable examples of attempts to fix the economy, by alienating his own base by failing to lead, he may be working to ensure a Republican victory in 2012 and thus leave them with the upcoming financial catastrophe.
One does not succeed in politics by only thinking in the short term. The leadership of both parties know this, and have to think beyond the next election even if those who are in office seldom think that far ahead.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tea Party Protest History
The first of the modern Tea Party protests took place in 2007. It was a combined event, both a protest against the excessive spending of George W. Bush and a campaign event of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Throughout 2008 more of these combined events occurred.
This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.
Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.
It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.
The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.
History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.
This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.
Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.
It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.
The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.
History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Secession, or Jettison
When Bush was president, there were some hopeful signs on the subject of secession. It was when Bush was president that the Free State Project was initiated, and it was under President Bush that liberal pundits made their first, tentative explorations into the subjects of nullification and secession, subjects previously forbidden to liberals and progressives. The tentative progressive explorations all came to an abrupt halt when Obama was elected, of course, at which point conservatives started making the same explorations with regards to health care, explorations that were forbidden due to the war on terror.
But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.
This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.
That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.
California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?
Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.
There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.
The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.
But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.
This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.
That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.
California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?
Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.
There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.
The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Obama is failing
Although Obama supporters continue to tell all doubters that it is far too early to judge whether Obama has been a successful president or not, and indicate that for the foreseeable future it will still be too early, there are indications that he has indeed become a failure in spite of all his good intentions.
There are two indicators that can be pointed at that show a weakening of support for Obama. The first is a Saturday Night Live skit featuring actors impersonating Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. This is the same show that did such a convincing impersonation of Sarah Palin that many Democrats actually think Palin said she could see Russia from her porch. The second is a week long series in Doonesbury in which Gary Trudeau, using the character Mark Slackmeyer as his mouth piece, has gone on a critical rampage against Obama's policy failings.
There are some groups that would never support Obama. Republicans never would for the same reason Republicans would never support any Democrat - they are in the hated other party. Crips hate Bloods and Bloods hate Crips. In spite of the insinuations, continued to the point of absurdity, that it is all about race, the simple truth is that Republicans won't support Obama because he's a Democrat.
Libertarians find that occasionally Obama appears that he might be willing to do things right, on very rare occasions, such as when he eventually got around to doing something about the war on drugs, but overall he is as much a disappointment as he was expected to be, that all the rhetoric about hope and change was to fool the gullible as most campaign promises are.
But those examples show voices that would normally be more supportive of Obama questioning their own president.
While the bailout has given the illusion of the recession being over, it is clear that the fundamental problems are not solved. The wars continue (as Obama promised) in spite of the hopes of his supporters that he would end them. Health care is in many ways a fiasco for the Democrats, as Obama campaigned on the public option and then stated he did not do so.
The year 2010 is going to be even worse economically than 2009. Will it still be too early to judge Obama?
There are two indicators that can be pointed at that show a weakening of support for Obama. The first is a Saturday Night Live skit featuring actors impersonating Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. This is the same show that did such a convincing impersonation of Sarah Palin that many Democrats actually think Palin said she could see Russia from her porch. The second is a week long series in Doonesbury in which Gary Trudeau, using the character Mark Slackmeyer as his mouth piece, has gone on a critical rampage against Obama's policy failings.
There are some groups that would never support Obama. Republicans never would for the same reason Republicans would never support any Democrat - they are in the hated other party. Crips hate Bloods and Bloods hate Crips. In spite of the insinuations, continued to the point of absurdity, that it is all about race, the simple truth is that Republicans won't support Obama because he's a Democrat.
Libertarians find that occasionally Obama appears that he might be willing to do things right, on very rare occasions, such as when he eventually got around to doing something about the war on drugs, but overall he is as much a disappointment as he was expected to be, that all the rhetoric about hope and change was to fool the gullible as most campaign promises are.
But those examples show voices that would normally be more supportive of Obama questioning their own president.
While the bailout has given the illusion of the recession being over, it is clear that the fundamental problems are not solved. The wars continue (as Obama promised) in spite of the hopes of his supporters that he would end them. Health care is in many ways a fiasco for the Democrats, as Obama campaigned on the public option and then stated he did not do so.
The year 2010 is going to be even worse economically than 2009. Will it still be too early to judge Obama?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
One Healthcare Reform
Proponents of the current healthcare reform proposal in congress like to accuse critics of not offering any alternatives, of only opposing without offering anything. While that accusation is completely not true, it serve proponents of the fascist system well as a big lie, just as calling it socialist instead of fascist serves as another convenient lie.
Rather than dissect any particular part of the fascist bill, a refutation of the false charge that critics offer nothing is also useful. The reason the proponents say that critics offer nothing is because only big government solutions are allowed to be considered. Anything else is not a "constructive proposal" and thus they can get away with that big lie.
In spite of the psychological block against small government proposals being considered, it is always useful to suggest as many small government solutions as possible. That way the next time someone says that critics of fascist health care never offer solutions the critics can respond with "look at all the solutions I've offered that you refuse to consider."
Given the large number of problems, any single solution fails to address the full problem and appears short sighted. But one aspect is all that can be addressed at once.
One of the problems with the current system is that the patient is not the customer. When a doctor treats a patient, the patient isn't the customer. The insurance pays for the visit, and so the insurance is the customer. And who is the insurance company's customer? Since most people get their insurance through their employer, the employer is the customer and not the employee. It is true that sufficient employee complaints can cause an employer to switch companies, but the customer of the insurance company is the employer.
For a truly responsive insurance company, the patient needs to be the customer of the insurance company. For truly responsive health care, the patient needs to be the customer of the doctor. The only remaining question of this particular solution is how to make it possible. As proponents of fascist health care are quick to point out, the average person cannot afford a catastrophic illness.
The first part of the solution is to transfer the tax incentive for the purchase of health insurance from the employer to the employee. That way, unlike the Obama plan, people have a positive encouragement to purchase insurance instead of a punishment for failure to purchase insurance. Persuasion always being preferable to force, encouraging people to purchase insurance instead of punishing them for failure to purchase insurance is a better solution.
To make insurance affordable enough for a person to purchase it, the price needs to be brought down. That can be done through coercion or through encouragement. To do it through encouragement the best way to do it is through removing the rules that prohibit insurance companies from competing across state lines. Putting individual insurance policies in the hand of the customers while simultaneously increasing the number of companies and policies available, while giving people a tax break for purchasing insurance, will drive down the cost to the point where most people can afford it.
Another way to make insurance affordable is to remember that insurance is supposed to be for the unusual event. The way health insurance currently operates is absurd - it is comparable to using automobile insurance to pay for basic tune-ups, or even to pay for putting gas in the car.
Analyzing a standard insurance statement or doctor's visit statement, one finds that in general a large portion of a standard bill is an insurance negotiated adjustment. Another large portion is the patient co-pay. The smallest part is the payment the insurance company makes to the doctor. Ask most doctors what their cash price is and it turns out it is actually lower than the stated price for a visit.
People need to pay directly for office visits, and a good way to do that is through tax deductible healthcare savings accounts. But not the HSAs currently in use, that have an end of year use-or-lose for the funds. What is needed is a roll-over HSA, that allows people to put in more funds than needed while healthy so that the funds will be there many years later when people need more healthcare funds. This is similar to using a retirement savings account. In order to encourage use of a roll-over HSA account funds put into it should be tax free, just as in the current annual HSA.
That will give our current healthcare system another thirty years of operation before it gets as bad as it currently is.
Rather than dissect any particular part of the fascist bill, a refutation of the false charge that critics offer nothing is also useful. The reason the proponents say that critics offer nothing is because only big government solutions are allowed to be considered. Anything else is not a "constructive proposal" and thus they can get away with that big lie.
In spite of the psychological block against small government proposals being considered, it is always useful to suggest as many small government solutions as possible. That way the next time someone says that critics of fascist health care never offer solutions the critics can respond with "look at all the solutions I've offered that you refuse to consider."
Given the large number of problems, any single solution fails to address the full problem and appears short sighted. But one aspect is all that can be addressed at once.
One of the problems with the current system is that the patient is not the customer. When a doctor treats a patient, the patient isn't the customer. The insurance pays for the visit, and so the insurance is the customer. And who is the insurance company's customer? Since most people get their insurance through their employer, the employer is the customer and not the employee. It is true that sufficient employee complaints can cause an employer to switch companies, but the customer of the insurance company is the employer.
For a truly responsive insurance company, the patient needs to be the customer of the insurance company. For truly responsive health care, the patient needs to be the customer of the doctor. The only remaining question of this particular solution is how to make it possible. As proponents of fascist health care are quick to point out, the average person cannot afford a catastrophic illness.
The first part of the solution is to transfer the tax incentive for the purchase of health insurance from the employer to the employee. That way, unlike the Obama plan, people have a positive encouragement to purchase insurance instead of a punishment for failure to purchase insurance. Persuasion always being preferable to force, encouraging people to purchase insurance instead of punishing them for failure to purchase insurance is a better solution.
To make insurance affordable enough for a person to purchase it, the price needs to be brought down. That can be done through coercion or through encouragement. To do it through encouragement the best way to do it is through removing the rules that prohibit insurance companies from competing across state lines. Putting individual insurance policies in the hand of the customers while simultaneously increasing the number of companies and policies available, while giving people a tax break for purchasing insurance, will drive down the cost to the point where most people can afford it.
Another way to make insurance affordable is to remember that insurance is supposed to be for the unusual event. The way health insurance currently operates is absurd - it is comparable to using automobile insurance to pay for basic tune-ups, or even to pay for putting gas in the car.
Analyzing a standard insurance statement or doctor's visit statement, one finds that in general a large portion of a standard bill is an insurance negotiated adjustment. Another large portion is the patient co-pay. The smallest part is the payment the insurance company makes to the doctor. Ask most doctors what their cash price is and it turns out it is actually lower than the stated price for a visit.
People need to pay directly for office visits, and a good way to do that is through tax deductible healthcare savings accounts. But not the HSAs currently in use, that have an end of year use-or-lose for the funds. What is needed is a roll-over HSA, that allows people to put in more funds than needed while healthy so that the funds will be there many years later when people need more healthcare funds. This is similar to using a retirement savings account. In order to encourage use of a roll-over HSA account funds put into it should be tax free, just as in the current annual HSA.
That will give our current healthcare system another thirty years of operation before it gets as bad as it currently is.
Friday, August 07, 2009
The Missing Debate
The debate over the "Cash for Clunkers" program is interesting. It is a perfect microcosm of the debate over the entire economic progam of the Obama administration.
Those who favor the program argue that it stimulates the economy and is good for the environment. Those who oppose the program argue that is an example of the fallacy of the broken window and that it is not environmentally beneficial because while an old car only has the gas mileage environmental costs a new car has manufacture and gas mileage environmental costs.
The response from those who favor the program is not to argue any of these points. The response from those who favor the program is not to even acknowledge that the points have been made in the first place, but to repeat the original claims as if they are proven already.
Given that all the claims are already proven, there is no need to debate. Debate only gives unnecesary credibility to those who have no basis to their arguments. Never mind that the arguments against are based on some pretty realistic concerns about if the program actually works economically or environmentally, as long as the arguments aren't analyzed there is no need to worry about their content.
At least under Bush it was obvious when counter arguments were being dismissed out of hand and without thought, but under Obama the talk isn't "if you are not with us you are against us" but instead there is the suggestion of bipartisanship and all sides coming together. All sides can come together, if they all agree to do as they are told by the Obama administraiton.
Those who favor the program argue that it stimulates the economy and is good for the environment. Those who oppose the program argue that is an example of the fallacy of the broken window and that it is not environmentally beneficial because while an old car only has the gas mileage environmental costs a new car has manufacture and gas mileage environmental costs.
The response from those who favor the program is not to argue any of these points. The response from those who favor the program is not to even acknowledge that the points have been made in the first place, but to repeat the original claims as if they are proven already.
Given that all the claims are already proven, there is no need to debate. Debate only gives unnecesary credibility to those who have no basis to their arguments. Never mind that the arguments against are based on some pretty realistic concerns about if the program actually works economically or environmentally, as long as the arguments aren't analyzed there is no need to worry about their content.
At least under Bush it was obvious when counter arguments were being dismissed out of hand and without thought, but under Obama the talk isn't "if you are not with us you are against us" but instead there is the suggestion of bipartisanship and all sides coming together. All sides can come together, if they all agree to do as they are told by the Obama administraiton.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yet another Obama "reversal"
Obama has filled his cabinet with people who have positions in alignment with Obama's voting record but at variance with his campaign rhetoric and the wishes of his true believers. One example is that "peace candidate" Obama has appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. It is no secret that she was one of the most hawkish members of the Senate.
Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.
When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.
According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.
The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.
There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.
The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.
Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.
It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.
Also Obama supposedly is not as bad on gun liberty as most Democrats are, based on one speech he gave where he expressed some support for the second amendment. This stands in contrast to his record, but with Obama the image has been shown to be more important than the reality time and again. Then, like the appointment of Hillary which reflects questionable positions on war, he appointed Eric Holder who has never met a restriction on gun rights that he did not like to the position of Attorney General.
When confronted by the dissonance between the position and the appointment, Obama supporters are quick to assure people that these subordinates will take their cues from Obama, that they will not press their own agenda. A more interesting question to ask, and one avoided by Obama supporters, is whether or not these appointments reflect Obama's actual positions and therefore there is no need for Obama to rein in his underlings.
According to Attorney General Holder, Obama has recently come out in favor of renewing the "assault" weapon ban.
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
The "assault" weapon ban was one of the worst pieces of firearm legislation ever passed, and its renewal should be opposed by both who believe in the liberty of self defense and those who oppose the liberty of self defense.
There is no actual definition of "assault weapon." Firearms are classified by operation. Primary classifications are fully automatic, semi-automatic, and those that are not automatic at all. Secondary classifications include muzzle velocity and caliber.
The "assault" weapon ban did not impact a single fully automatic weapon. Not only did none of them fit into the bill's definition, fully automatics were already generally forbidden to the public before the "assault" weapon ban passed.
Every firearm banned by the "assault" weapon ban was a semi-automatic, but it did not ban all semi-automatics. Nor did it ban semi-automatics according to classifications such as muzzle velocity or caliber. It banned some due to cosmetic effects, and failed to ban others that were functionally equivalent in every way.
It was a horrible bill, one that deserved to expire. Only someone with absolutely no regard for any form of common sense with regards to gun control could possibly support it. Eric Holder supports it, and according to Holder, Obama also supports it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Employee "Free" Choice Act
Organized labor leaders supported Obama. They did not do so selflessly, but out of a desire to have a certain law passed that would greatly increase the strength and wealth of organized labor. They look forward to the passage of the Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act."
That act does not give employees free choice; it gives union organizers free choice over the employees.
Currently, if there is a drive to form a union, it is a two step process. First employee signature cards are collected to show sufficient interest, and then a secret ballot election is held to determine whether or not a majority of employees actually want a union. The biggest complaint of the union organizers is that employees who sign the check cards that leads to the election then vote against forming a union on their secret ballots.
The EFCA will eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot election. The employee check cards will be considered sufficient to form a union.
Allegedly this is done to prevent employer intimidation. The theory is that during the time interval between the collection of the signature cards and the balloting, a sufficient number of pro-union employees would be fired to ensure the election goes the way the employer wants, presumably anti-union. This flies in the face of currently existing employment laws which protect union organizers from being treated in this manner.
Also allegedly somehow employers would know how employees voted in the secret ballot and therefore punish those employees who support the union. The truth is that union organizers are disgruntled that they do not know how employees voted and therefore can not punish those employees who oppose the union. Some organizers even make the Orwellian suggestion that in the interest of fairness the ballot should not be secret.
Instead of being a protection for the employee, this EFCA is actually a way for unions to abuse employees. Signing the union card is a public act, analogous to registering to vote. Peer pressure can move people to act in ways that they wouldn’t act if granted privacy. The Employee Free Choice Act allows Guido and Nunzio to walk up to an employee and say "Youze gonna sign the union card? You don't want no 'accidents' to happen so youze gonna sign it."
For the sake of the employee, the EFCA should not pass.
That act does not give employees free choice; it gives union organizers free choice over the employees.
Currently, if there is a drive to form a union, it is a two step process. First employee signature cards are collected to show sufficient interest, and then a secret ballot election is held to determine whether or not a majority of employees actually want a union. The biggest complaint of the union organizers is that employees who sign the check cards that leads to the election then vote against forming a union on their secret ballots.
The EFCA will eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot election. The employee check cards will be considered sufficient to form a union.
Allegedly this is done to prevent employer intimidation. The theory is that during the time interval between the collection of the signature cards and the balloting, a sufficient number of pro-union employees would be fired to ensure the election goes the way the employer wants, presumably anti-union. This flies in the face of currently existing employment laws which protect union organizers from being treated in this manner.
Also allegedly somehow employers would know how employees voted in the secret ballot and therefore punish those employees who support the union. The truth is that union organizers are disgruntled that they do not know how employees voted and therefore can not punish those employees who oppose the union. Some organizers even make the Orwellian suggestion that in the interest of fairness the ballot should not be secret.
Instead of being a protection for the employee, this EFCA is actually a way for unions to abuse employees. Signing the union card is a public act, analogous to registering to vote. Peer pressure can move people to act in ways that they wouldn’t act if granted privacy. The Employee Free Choice Act allows Guido and Nunzio to walk up to an employee and say "Youze gonna sign the union card? You don't want no 'accidents' to happen so youze gonna sign it."
For the sake of the employee, the EFCA should not pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)