Archive for September, 2009
Obama Prefers Global Governance
Posted by Tom in Foreign Policy, National Character, Politics on September 27, 2009
Naive, dishonest, egotistic, all aptly describe Obama. Given a chance to get in front of an audience he’ll take it every time regardless of the venue. The past week gave him two international venues, the UN and the G-20. He seems to be launching his campaign for president of the world. Yes, that’s right, his latest cause is world governance. Why, because the interests of all nations, all peoples are “shared interests!” Janet Daley’s post in the Telegraph says it well:
The idea of global governance is meaningless without mechanisms to enforce it, so what are we talking about here? World government? A system of laws and policing which would be beyond the reach of the electorates of individual countries, and therefore have no direct democratic accountability to the peoples of those nations? Even assuming that such institutions did not take on a self-justifying life of their own – which history teaches us is almost inevitable – and that they remained fastidiously responsive to the heads of national governments, they would still be, by definition, supranational…….
Then there is the moral blackmail of “shared interests”. Mr Obama has actually contended that, in the newly interconnected world, all of our interests are shared. Which is clearly false. Some of them are and some of them aren’t, as has always been the case. When nations do indeed share interests, whether they are economic or military, there are traditional ways of formalising their mutually advantageous understandings. There have always been bilateral or multilateral trade and credit arrangements, just as there have always been mutual defence treaties and foreign policy agreements. It is no coincidence that such arrangements have tended to be temporary: national interests change with time and circumstances. Does Mr Obama (and Mr Brown, who is trotting alongside him) believe that we have reached the end of history, or that circumstances are actually altering more slowly now than in previous eras? Surely not. All of his rhetoric, in fact, says the opposite.
Which brings us to the sticking point: the tricky bit comes when the interests of sovereign countries are not shared, but actually conflict. When Russia’s territorial inclinations are at odds with the independence of eastern European republics, or China’s reliance on exports is contributing to America’s credit problems, or Germany’s economic priorities threaten Britain’s finance industry – what then? Intoning pious banalities about global consensus will not make these differences go away: for the countries concerned they are – or may seem like – fundamental imperatives…………
What nobody seems to be saying is that it is the proper business of democratically elected governments to protect and defend the needs and wishes of their own people. This is nothing less than the whole 18th-century project of modern democracy with which we are playing fast and loose. Ironically, the fad for “global governance” – whatever that turns out to mean – suits democratically elected leaders rather well: it absolves them of responsibility while enhancing their prestige. Perfect. But then exposure on the world stage is also likely to betray the limits of their understanding: does Mr Obama really think that he can coerce or shame European nations – with all their historical baggage and self-serving complacency – into forsaking what he calls their “collective inaction” on foreign policy (on Iran, say)? It is hard enough for a leader to remain in touch with the consciousness of his own people: playing to a global electorate puts almost any politician out of his depth. Not that we are talking about electorates any longer. Voters are way, way down on the list of considerations in this new ball game.
No thanks, Mr. President, I don’t want to absolve you of one bit of responsibility for the statist agenda you are foisting on this great nation of ours. And, by the way, I don’t anticipate having any shared interest with governments in Iran, North Korea or for that matter Russia, any time soon.
Tom Motherway
One God, Three Faiths
Posted by Tom in Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on September 26, 2009
A picture similar to this caught my eye in this weekend’s WSJ.
The event was called “Islam on Capitol Hill” and was held to pray for the soul of America. It reminds me of a course I recently took from the Teaching Company called One God, Three Faiths. This traces the roots of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to Abraham.
Abraham’s first born was Ishmael by Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian slave. His second born was Isaac by Sarah in her old age. Ishmael was banished, Isaac was not. But according to Genesis, God promised both would be progenitors of “great nations.”
Fast forward to the present day. We have Judaism and its descendant, Christianity as one great nation and Islam as the other great nation. All “people of the book” as characterized by Muhammad.
So today we have one “great nation” growing dramatically and the other declining. Look at the birth rates; demographics don’t lie. In the main we have one great nation religious, save for the lunatics that legitimately concern us, and the other while still religious tending to be more secular, amoral, and atheistic. How many are moving to raise their children in Hollywood or San Francisco?
I wonder, did God intend a competition? If so did he ordain an outcome? Win or lose, for which great nation? A draw, perhaps? The Bible tells us that God chooses, Abel over Cain, Jacob over Esau, Moses over Aron. See a pattern here? Has He chosen? I wonder?
The point I attempt to make is twofold: freedom is essential in life and all its aspects, and therefore for religion. A necessary corollary is that tolerance is essential for respect of each individual’s exercise of freedom within moral limits. Those limits have been called moral law; they are essentially a broad societal consensus fostering peace, lawfulness and individual freedom.
I’d be less than honest if I did not say that my first reaction on seeing the WSJ photo was to caption it with something like, “the future for America?” On further reflection though, I believe a more religious future is exactly what America needs!
Tom Motherway
Obama’s Iran Formula: Speak Timidly and Don’t Carry a Stick!
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy on September 26, 2009
Stephen Hayes’ post in The Weekly Standard nails it: Obama is a wimp! The French are tougher than the Americans, the FRENCH! What a sad day for our country.
When Barack Obama strode on stage to scold Iran for its failure to disclose the existence of a second uranium-enrichment facility in the country, his message was timid and at times almost apologetic. When the tough language came, it was because French president Nicolas Sarkozy had taken the podium. Sarkozy excoriated the Iranians for their deception, saying that the revelations have caused “a very severe confidence crisis” and issued a time-specific warning about oft-threatened (but never implemented) sanctions. “We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the centrifuges are spinning,” he declared. “If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be imposed.”
via Obama’s Iran Formula.
Seniors, There’s a Good Side to Obamacare!
Posted by Tom in Nationalized Health Care on September 23, 2009
This from my friend, Barbara Grimes:
Finally—Sleeping Giant Awakens–We Hope!
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Constitution, Deficit, Government Regulation, National Character, Obama Budget & State of the Nation, Politics, Stimulus/Bailout on September 20, 2009
The following is from Cash Hamrick, basically unreported by the MSM.
This is the first great conservative anti-statist manifestation in American history. The conservative movement, which developed in the post-WWII, Cold War environment has now fully matured into the most significant political movement of the 21st century. I believe that this day could be referred to in the not too distant future as the day that changed America. This was the day the great silent conservative majority finally found its voice. Many of the attendees were quite meek and timid and were unsure of exactly what to expect, this being the first time in their lives they’d been involved in a protest movement. Their fears evaporated early in the day and I saw people reveling in the camaraderie , the joy and sheer civility that was exhibited at the entire event. Chants of “Freedom, freedom, freedom”, “No more czars! No more czars!” carried through the air without the slightest hint of rancor or incivility which is the norm at the leftist rallies I have photographed over the years.
![mime-attachment[24]](http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mime-attachment24-300x184.jpg "mime-attachment[24]")
Protesters came from every state in the union. One man came from San Antonio, TX. He said that he was really sorry he hadn’t brought his family. He stated that being a black conservative he was afraid to expose his children to what he expected would be a lot of liberal abuse. He was thrilled with the tenor of the event and the fact that no liberals were present to harass him. He spoke about how incredibly intolerant the left is to black individuals who don’t bow to the party line.
![mime-attachment[67]](http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mime-attachment67-300x200.jpg "mime-attachment[67]")
San Diego radio host Mason Weaver said from the podium: “I came here because I thought you might want to hear a black man speak without a teleprompter. This government is trying to make a nation of dependent people. Americans have always been independent people. ¦This is not a Republican thing, it’s not a Democrat thing. It’s not a black thing or a white thing. It’s an American thing. We the people are telling them ‘No more! We’ve had enough!’
![mime-attachment[15]](http://renohayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mime-attachment151-300x246.jpg "mime-attachment[15]")
A follow up to Cash’s contribution is an article by Robert Tracinski in Real Clear Politics, It’s the Liberty Stupid. In it he links a number of other pictures which show the multi-facated nature of the Washington demonstration; these are well worth the peek! I particularly like the Ayn Rand reference, Atlas Shrugged. Pray that we are not already there!
Tom Motherway
Here We Go Again
Stephen Spruiell’s NRO post, Spreading the Wealth, is worth the read. In it he reports on Robert Rector’s Heritage Foundation estimate of Obama’s $10.3 trillion in welfare programs over the next decade.
Clinton’s legislation promised as “end to welfare as we know it.” Obama’s redistributionist agenda should result in an end to American prosperity as we know it. There will be more and more with their hands out and fewer taxpayers to grease those palms. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.
Cargill on Crisis–September Meeting Notes
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Monetary Policy, Stimulus/Bailout on September 16, 2009
Our thanks to Tom Cargill, Ph.D. for his excellent presentation at last evening’s Reno Hayek Dinner. His background is impressive indeed: Following his degree at Davis he conducted research and published a number of books and articles in economics with emphasis on financial and central banking issues. He has consulted with governmental agencies in the US, Japan and Korea and presented lectures in China, Hungry, Australia and Indonesia.
And he did bring that background to bear in last night’s discussion on our current financial crisis. This classic bubble build and bust began in 2001 and its effects are now and will continue to be upon us. While significant, it is not as bad as the Great Depression or Japan’s decade of deflation although both provide valuable lessons today which bailout oriented policy makers seem to ignore. With cheap liquidity flooding the market for too long a time and a government policy mandating loans to deadbeat borrowers, real estate prices outstripped fundamentals. With government assistance and off balance sheet securitizations the US exported the bubble to overseas investors so the explosion resounded beyond our shores. With the implied guarantee of our two GSEs the investments were viewed as risk free.
The explosion took effect and unlike past explosions the central banks acted quickly and concertedly with “a hair of the dog” remedy, easy money. Governments joined in with Keynesian fiscal “stimulus,” which really doesn’t have the advertised multiplier effect; that real effect is in fact negative. Governments also added “bailouts” as weapons in the war against its crisis. These were added without regard to moral hazard and we now have the vagary of “systemic risk” and companies that are “too big to fail!”
So the “government or market” causation question for our current financial problems, probably deserves the answer, both. But were it not for the government policies of Government Sponsored Entities, easy money, and home ownership by people unable to handle that ownership, the crisis would never have occurred. Crystal balling outcomes is indeed difficult but it seems to be a better bet that we will have inflation instead of deflation and that it will be politically difficult for the central banks to tighten monetary policy and fiscal authorities to withdraw stimulus. The major deficits and unprecedented debt will be an effective drag on our future economy and new taxes, especially the VAT will most likely be needed to approach some sanity.
The proof of a good meeting is its interest and duration; last evening, no one wanted to leave and we ran a half hour over schedule! Our thanks to Professor Cargill for the excellent meeting.
Tom Motherway, tom@renohayek.com
CDHC
Posted by Tom in Nationalized Health Care on September 13, 2009
John Graham’s September 13th post in Real Clear Politics, The Best Health Care Plan You’ve Never Heard Of, reiterates what intelligent experts have been saying but adds a convenient acronym, CDHC, consumer driven health care:
Washington is in the midst of yet another scandal — but not the kind you’d read about in a gossip rag. Congressional dilettantes are willfully ignoring health-care reform ideas that would cut costs and provide high-quality care to all.
Sound nuts? It shouldn’t. By refusing to even consider consumer-driven health care (CDHC), congressional leaders are proving that they’re more interested in putting the government in charge of Americans’ health care than in actually improving patient outcomes. Decades of evidence show that CDHC-style reforms can achieve the stated goal of would-be health reformers: high-quality care at low cost.
via RealClearPolitics – The Best Health Care Plan You’ve Never Heard Of. The full article is worth the read.
To this solution, I would only add, tort reform by way of caps on non economic damages, insurance competition without regard to state lines, and taxation of employer provided health insurance.
Tom Motherway, tom@renohayek.com
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Shakespeare’s “Henry VI”
Posted by Tom in Legal, Nationalized Health Care on September 11, 2009
As a young lawyer I tried cases and briefed and argued appeals under the then president of the American Trial Lawyers Association, a great mentor and fine, old-time attorney. His firm specialized in plaintiffs personal injury law; its expertise in this speciality, garnered referrals from numerous other attorneys in the Midwestern US. These negligence cases had “contingency fees” ranging from 33-50% of the amount recovered from the defendant’s insurance company, whether insuring a negligent driver or negligent doctor, the negligence was for the jury to determine after suffering through the “skill” of the attorneys presenting the case. As a hot-shot young lawyer I was lucky to get the job and the first in my law school graduating class to get in front of a jury. The young guys got the “crap” cases in the office. I was lucky to have a .500 batting average with these crap cases in my first year as a trial lawyer. I was luckier to participate in the so-called “intellectual” side of the profession in briefing and arguing cases before the state appellate and supreme courts and the federal court of appeals. Despite the money and promise for more, I was most lucky to learn that this side of the law was not for me. I got out!
While the plaintiffs bar can legitimately claim some past social progress in reforming industrial America to reasonable workplace safety and moral standards, it can no longer justify the social and economic costs of its existence. The “contingency bar” now finances lawsuits, “securities strike” suits, “asbestos” suits, and “whatever suits.” These class action type suits generate tremendous contingency fees at little or no risk for the cost of the litigation which is borne by the true beneficiaries, the trial lawyers.
In medical malpractice the costs to society include not only the excess insurance premiums, the excess medical fees, the excess hospital fees but also the excess costs of “defensive medicine,” that is ordering unnecessary tests to cover any potential medical liability no matter how remote. And all those latter costs, defensive medicine costs, include expenses of labor, equipment, administration and profit. These are not a small amount.
In total all contingency litigation costs, in general negligence, in automobile negligence, in medical malpractice, and in securities strike litigation, amount to a staggering tax on our economy and our society.
This is particularly relevant today with the current push for Obamacare. Our young president knows that his smallest voting group is the largest funding group, so he is willing to sacrifice logical solutions to get money so that he can continue, with Pelosi, Reid and the rest of his leftists, to bamboozle the American public. The trial lawyers seem to own this disingenuous young man.
As Kimberley Strassel in the September 11th WSJ op ed says of the 11 Republican senate committee proposals to limit the trial lawyers, “on a party line vote, Democrats killed every one.” “The tort-reform issue has instead clarified this presidency. Namely, that the new-politics president still takes orders from the old Democratic lobby.” A sad situation for America!
Tom Motherway, tom@renohayek.com
Obama’s Forcefully Delivered “iffy math” on Healthcare
Posted by Tom in Nationalized Health Care on September 9, 2009
According to the Associated Press Analysis, Obama used “only-in-Washington” accounting when he promised to overhaul healthcare without adding “one dime” to the deficit. In reality, real accounting, according to the CBO his plan would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars. His forceful “oversimplifications and omissions” test the intelligence of the public and Democrats he hopes to control. He obviously doubts the intelligence of the public.
If he is successful, your children and grandchildren will indeed have a long wait, to extricate themselves from the unconscionable debt he is piling on them!
Tom Motherway, tom@renohayek.com