Archive for category Statism
The World’s Policeman Has Become the World’s Enabler
Posted by Tom in Defense, Deficit, Democrats, Entitlements, Europe, Fed, Financial Policy, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Military Policy, Statism on January 1, 2012
It can’t continue. It has got to stop. Since the end of WWII we have been the western world’s policeman, unpaid despite the sacrifice of our blood and treasure. We rebuilt Europe and Japan following the war then we paid for and continue to pay for their defense. As a consequence we have enabled the socialistic welfare states of Europe to increase their welfare. Now, to the point where the weaker ones are bankrupt. To top that off our president is taking the country in the same welfare state direction and the Fed is attempting to continue helping Europe kick the can down the street supporting the zombie European nations.
I was impressed with Ed Crane’s comment in a WSJ op-ed on Ron Paul that the U.S. spends more than the rest of the world on defense–in essence defense of the western world! ”…an overreaching military presence around the world is inconsistent with small, constitutional government at home. The massive cost of these interventions, in treasure and blood, highlights what a mistake they are, as sensible people on the left and right recognized from the beginning. Of course we want a strong military capable of defending the United States, but our current expenditures equal what the rest of the world spends, which makes little sense. It is futile to try to be the world’s policeman…”
My point is that to the extent we overspend on defense, Europe doesn’t need to spend. Their taxes to the extent paid go to increase statist expansions and welfare in countries like Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain.
To top that off, our Fed seems to think it legitimate to help finance Europe’s profligate ways. Jerry O’Driscoll exposes Bernanke’s covert effort to bail out the ECB in his recent WSJ op-ed highlighted in our blog. This is clearly ultra vires, beyond the legal power of the Fed and against what its chairman has publicly stated.
In effect we have given Europe the leeway to expand its welfare state beyond its capacity to pay for that expansion. Our president who has no concept of economics admires the European model and seeks to expand our own welfare state beyond its capacity to pay for the expansion. His statist stimulus expenditures were nothing more than payments to increase the size and scope of government. His Obamacare takeover of medicine is nothing more than an unsustainable entitlement addition to the already unsustainable entitlements of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
We have enabled Europe’s welfare/statist addiction at a time when we can’t afford our own addiction. That latter addiction is theft from our grandchildren. Immorality par excellence! It must stop!
Europe’s Road to Serfdom
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Europe, Federalism, Government Regulation, Statism on November 24, 2011
Friedrich Hayek distrusted the central planners for the fatal conceit that they knew more than people working freely in society, in the marketplace, in the polity. This “rule by the few” has gained a major foothold, no, strangle hold, in Europe. The technocrats in Brussels rule by dictat!
Rany York sent the following video in which Nigel Farage, MEP and UKIP, describes the situation with some accurate historical perspective. He correctly points out the shaky assumptions on which the EU and European Monetary Union were based. His fiery indictment of the unelected technocrats should serve as a warning to us in America: our bureaucrats, agencies, commissions, and tzars are nothing other than unelected technocrats!
Witness the financial upheaval in European financial markets resulting in yesterday’s failed German bond auction, to see where socialism leads. Sadly our President and the leftist Democrats think we are somehow immune.
Cuba’s Re-Revolution….Very Slow
How’s the Revolution working for you after 50+ years? “Not well….it’s failed,” is the common answer you, if you are trusted, will hear in Havana. A week in Havana gives but a glimpse of socialism at its best.
The equality Castro delivered is depressing. Havana’s citizens live in run down squatter-occupied former commercial buildings, worn public housing projects, and middle class apartments, while foreign residents and diplomats live in upper class ghettos a little better in quality. The residents get a monthly food ration of so many pounds of rice, coffee, beans, etc. which lasts 15 days on average. The bodegas where ration allotments are spent, are basic, but there are open air farmers markets which are a step up. They also get a salary depending on their status of 200 ($10) to 400 ($20) pesos per month. The best jobs are government jobs particularly military and police who “earn” on average what a doctor earns. The citizens are not free to travel without permission, and do not have access to the internet or outside TV programs.
The government controls the press and the educational establishment. Freedom is extremely limited. I asked one economic grad if he studied the Austrian economists like Hayek, he say yes but he was taught that only socialism worked. I then asked if there was academic freedom; he said, of course not!
There is also the snoop part of the culture, the hard liners who will report on their neighbors. In fact some of the better neighborhoods because they are better have a higher ratio of snoopers. The less desirable neighborhoods are thus freer. A Cuban joke asks why you often see three cops standing on the street corner, the answer: you need one to write, one to read, and one to watch the two intellectuals!
All this yields a population in decline. The birth rate is below replacement level at 1.7. Cuba has one of the highest divorce rates. Abortion is high and used as contraception. Women who plan to advance will not have children. Men who plan to escape don’t want a family. The young educated people leave when they can, usually by marrying a non-citizen or over extending the rare opportunity to travel. Doctors and health care workers who are part of Castro’s diplomatic efforts have a likely exit route, as Joel Millman’s WSJ article, New Prise in Cold War: Cuban Doctors, shows. There’s a joke that Cubans aren’t allowed to fish in the ocean because they “fish too far” referring to the 90 mile distance to Key West.
That said, the people generally appear to be healthy and not malnourished. Public health is said to be good with fumigation the major tool. Medical care is free. Education is free. There is no discrimination in this social melting pot. But the high end government jobs are typically held by the whites and the jails are typically populated by the blacks. Gays and lesbians, in earlier times shunned and later tolerated are now encouraged.
The government manages to keep most people occupied, not productive, but occupied. There is a ministry for this and a ministry for that, ad infinitum. There are those, though, who sit around the public squares and beg, pose for tourists pictures or sketch tourists and demand payment. The government’s renovation projects are honored more in anticipation than in real activity. Work on those projects seems to lack processes and tools we find common.
Culture is the freest outlet for expression. Music is omnipresent, varied and excellent. Jazz at the Buena Vista Social Club is just great. Ballet aficionados in our group compared the Havana troupe to those seen in San Francisco. Art is flourishing and excellent, some very dark, some very difficult for government negative interpretation, which I suspect was intended by the artist. Cuisine is not an art and very basic. As one guidebook suggests, don’t expect much.
Religion was initially banned as atheism, a tenant of communism, doesn’t quite accept belief in God. The results are evident today with churches seized by the government standing in disrepair and fenced. As communism was dropped fron the constitution following the demise of the USSR, restrictions started to loosen up. Following the Pope’s visit, religions became freer and more accepted. We attended a Greek Orthodox Mass that was inspiring. The congregation is growing and young. It’s responsible for some good charitable work among the poorer classes.
Property rights as we know them are non-existent. Aside from the expropriations of foreign and domestic businesses in the Revolution, the government has allowed home “occupancy” to continue and to be passed to succeeding generations. But buying and selling homes is prohibited. This generates a Byzantine system of trading, phony divorce-remarriage schemes, and bribes. Car ownership including buying and selling for pre 1959 cars is permitted, but not until this past week for more modern cars! Contract rights are in the same boat as property rights, legally enforced to a limited extent if at all. Torts, intentional or negligent, are not actionable. I was told in the hotel if you trip over there and break your back, its your problem, don’t even think about suing, “that’s a Gringo thing.” That, a positive for the Cuban system!
Cuba works as a cash economy. There is no credit for Cubans. Everything is paid for in cash. The ordinary society functions on non-convertible pesos. The foreign businesses, foreign residents, and tourists use CUCs, convertible pesos, 20 to 24 pesos to the CUC. Converting a US dollar to the CUC gets you .86 CUCs. The government takes 10 cents from your dollar and 4 cents goes for exchange vigorish. A favorite occupation of the three museum docents or guards (in each room!) is to ask tourists to change a twenty dollar bill. This budding entrepreneurial effort at the “exchange” business is encouraging!
The most encouraging thing economically is the underground economy. It is significant and growing. Tips don’t get reported and with tourism such a large part of the economy they are significant. Profits like tips don’t get reported and folks like the museum ladies make profits. Government cab drivers who exceed their monthly fare quota don’t turn in the excess but consider it a large tip! Remittances are a large part of the shadow economy and they are significant. Remittances to Cuba as recently as 2008 were estimated at $1.4 Billion. The underground or shadow economy is estimated at $2.0 Billion. Paul Haven’s Washington Times article, Cuba’s shadow economy sees some daylight, paints an interesting picture.
Characteristic of Cubans is to accept life, make do, make things work. Protests and dissent is rare. We saw no evidence of the dissent evidenced by Mary Anastasia O’Grady’s recent WSJ article Cuba’s Repression Escalates. This because there are few rebels. The attitude toward property rights limitation is typical, not being able to sell your house at a profit, or at all, but only to trade it, typifies the acceptance. Laws and promises of the government are accepted no matter how silly. The “free lunch” is taken for granted; of course, it’s really not free. It’s a numb society. A generation of the revolution has succeeded in numbing the people. Big government is in control. Socialism is taught as the only system that works. There is no academic freedom, only conformity. Outlets now are music, art, cinema, and most recently religion, all of which have seen the seesaw censorship lessen. The real hope is that these and the budding entrepreneurship of the underground economy will flourish.
The Revolution has failed. What’s called for, for these wonderful people, is a re-revolution. Let’s hope we see it and, in our case, learn from it!
SHUT IT DOWN!
Posted by Tom in Bankruptcy, Budgets, Congress, Deficit, Entitlements, National Character, Politics, Presidency, Statism on April 3, 2011
I’ve read several articles and posts on the potential shutdown of the government if a wasteful expense cuts are not agreed to by Reid and Obama. The consensus is, as in past shutdowns, that “essential services” would be maintained. (More on that later.) In essence, defense, boarder protections (such as we have), law enforcement, the courts, congress and the administration would continue as would things like welfare checks and social security, medicare and medicaid payments. Our world, our lives, will not end if the government shuts down!
USA Today reports that President Obama has predicted “dire” consequences if there is a shutdown. However, he has instructed agencies not to reveal their shutdown plans. Seems kinda strange, doesn’t? If consequences are so dire, why wouldn’t he let the agencies explain?
“In e-mails from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) last month, agencies were told their statements to Congress “should not state or imply what functions would or would not be continued in the event of a funding gap.”
It continued: “Agencies should not be previewing shutdown plans — that is, policy and operational decisions — in any way.” Agencies were instructed to clear any responses to questions about their shutdown plans with OMB.”
Here’s the point: why is the United States government rendering NON-ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND WITH OUR TAX MONEY?
By the blood of our forefathers we are a Constitutional Republic, one of limited powers, those not granted by us are reserved to the states or retained by us; this is embodied in the 10th Amendment. The government should perform ONLY essential services.
So, I say, shut it down. And consider shutting it down permanently. The boogyman Obama and his lackeys in the main stream media would have us fear is our own ignorance and dependency. This doesn’t portend a very confident future for our children!
U.S. Statism That Would Make China Proud
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, China, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Statism on March 17, 2011
Friedrich Hayek observed that central planning doesn’t work no matter how smart the central planners because they can’t know as much as the aggregate of individuals dealing freely in the marketplace. This was the basis of his primary attack on socialism, communism.
China for years operated its communist state after the USSR model with central planners controlling the marketplace deciding what is produced, how much, by whom and what the price should be. Well China watched while its model the USSR careened into bankruptcy and dissolved. Clever Chinese learn quickly and have by increasing degrees evolved to a quasi-capitalistic model while not abandoning socialistic central planning completely. Statism still flourishes in China.
Obama and his leftists, excuse me, progressives, are the intellectual elite. They are better than the unwashed masses. They by the shear force of intellect know more than you and I know. Thus they are the best central planners around. They know what’s best for society whether its ethanol production or medical service delivery.
There is no better example of this than Government Motors, the failed car company that Obama confiscated to wipe out bondholders and hand over to the employee union and us taxpayers. And, there is no better story on this than Patrick Michaels Forbes article, Chevy Volt: The Car From Atlas Shrugged Motors. Seems that Obama’s central planners after inserting their own management decided that GM should manufacture little green cars to improve the environment and reduce foreign oil dependence. The little green car of choice was to be called the Chevy Volt, because it ran on electricity. This was so wonderful, electricity not gasoline, that the central planers decided that this merited a tax subsidy, in this case a $7,500 rebate!
Central planner in chief Obama was so impressed that he went to the plant and had his new GM boss order the tripling of planned production. Oh, but then came the embarrassing news that Volt wasn’t the first ever all electric production vehicle, the Volt needed a premium gas engine! So it was really a hybrid. Ah no, the gas was only to recharge the batteries and it would still travel 50 miles without gas. Sorry, another surprise came out: the premium gas engine is needed to turn the wheels and it will only go 25 mile without gas.
The sticker price is $41,000 or $43, 700 with options to which is added a dealer prep charge of $5000, against which the $7500 rebate applies. “This is one reason that Volt sales are anemic: 326 in December, 321 in January, and 281 in February. GM announced a production run of 100,000 in the first two years. Who is going to buy all these cars?”
OK, in statist China, the government runs the production companies, just like Government Motors. But the government also influences other companies, call them dependent companies. The answer to who will but these Volts, is General Electric, a US dependent company.
Seems that GE is awash in tax subsidy dependent windmills. Obama needs a Volt buyer, GE needs windmill subsidies. So Obama appoints Jeff Immelt to chair his Economic Advisory Board and Jeff Immelt buys 50,000 Volts, provided he gets the tax rebate!
Voila! Problem solved! Who loses, after all? Just the taxpayers, the economy, the nation, that’s all. Turns out, Honda won’t lose: A 5 seat Accord gets 34 mpg vs. Volt’s 27 and costs less than half the cost of a Volt. Hayek looks pretty smart….a lot smarter than Obama!
Patrick Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Climate Coup: Global Warming’s Invasion of our Government and our Lives, which comes out April 22.
Obama’s Government By Fiat
Posted by Tom in Banks, Centrally Managed Economy, Fed, Financial Policy, Government Regulation, Statism on March 16, 2011
In one of his most effective attempts to show he is strong, Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren, the leftist Harvard law professor to…..well… ‘er he couldn’t actually appoint her to head the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Dodd-Frank finance reform, which he wanted to do. Bi-partisan opposition assured her of rejection as head of any legal, statutory regulatory agency. So what did Obama, lawyer himself, do? He appointed her to a “special position” at both the White House and Treasury with the job of staffing the bureau, setting its direction and implementing the CFPB law, which:
- has without Congressional oversight jurisdiction over credit institutions,
- is not subject to annual Congressional appropriations,
- sets its own budget by taking up to 10-12% of the Fed’s earnings,
- can call on an added $200 Million more per year from Congress,
- and, which can issue rules contrary to the Fed, IRS, Comptroller of the Currency and Treasury Secretary.
This is frightening stuff. Government by fiat! A bureau staffed by leftists like the former AFL-CIO counsel David Silbermann, answerable to no one! Today’s WSJ editorial, President Warren’s Empire, calls it a “bureaucratic rogue,” and concludes:
“This is no way to run a government, especially not one that Madison envisioned. The consumer bureau is essentially a bureaucratic rogue. We’d like to see Congress kill the agency entirely. But at the very least Congress should remove it from the Fed, make it part of the Treasury and subject it to annual appropriations. No one elected—or even nominated—Elizabeth Warren.”
Public Schools Exist For Teachers Unions, Not Students
Posted by Tom in Education Facts & Policies, Statism, Unions on February 17, 2011
David Harsanyi of the Denver Post tells the sad story of 40% of the unionized teachers in Madison Wisconsin calling in sick, forcing the superintendent of schools to shut down the entire school operation. Harsanyi appropriately calls it An Assault on Taxpayers in his RCP February 18th post. Seems that in Wisconsin lawmakers are attempting to restrict public employee collective bargaining to wages instead of unsustainable pension benefits. Well, the teachers are pissed, and they’ll show those nasty lawmakers by calling in sick!
Harsanyi argues that sure unions are to blame but the bigger problem is state monopoly with education as the prime example.”Whatever you may think of the politics of private-sector unions — now less than 7 percent of the work force — they function in a competitive environment. Public sectors, on the other hand, have artificial leverage that no other workers in the nation enjoy.”
“The counterargument is familiar. These folks are sacrificing healthy salaries by choosing to teach your children rather than greedily chasing riches that they would almost certainly realize if they took their talents to the private sector. (Funny, isn’t it then, that when we try to inject competition into education, it’s met with anger and scorn by the people who sacrifice without it.)” He points that immunity from economic downturns and market fluctuations is rare. But it’s worse when the public sector union demands are often the cause of the financial pain.
Of course we can look to our President for proper guidance, right? NOT! “Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where they’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions,” explained President Barack Obama, who, unlike governors, can (and does) borrow trillions. The numbers, though, tell us that public-sector unions are the ones assaulting taxpayers and brittle state economies. And the more we grow the state monopoly the worse it will get.”
It all gets down to the proper role of government. Education, health care, charity don’t come to mind when you start to list the primary functions of government! When government enters these roles, it screws them up. There is little government does well and creating monopolies outside its proper scope only magnifies society’s troubles.
David Harsanyi is an excellent commentator; I recommend following him. tjm
Taxpayer Super Bowl Ads
Posted by Tom in Bankruptcy, Democrats, Statism, Stimulus/Bailout, Unions on February 7, 2011
Did you happen to see the Chrysler ad during yesterday’s superbowl telecast? It was pretty long, in fact, the longest of the program, running a bit over two minutes. The ad must have been expensive to produce at government inflated costs, and at $3 Million per 30 second slot, one run of this would have been $12 Million. In reality, the spin was just as much about Detroit as Chrysler.
Now we know President Johnson once called Detroit the model city of the Great Society. And we know that our current government bailed out the UAW of GM and Chrysler by subordinating the bondholders to the unions and transferring the bulk of the ownership in each firm to the U.S. taxpayers. So here’s the ad:
In reality, Detroit is the prime example of the progressive agenda. It is barren, deserted and bankrupt. In every important respect it is dependent on the federal government, the U.S. taxpayer.
Knowing that, how do you like your ad? Are you happy about the way your hard earned tax dollars are spent?
Regulators Are Unchecked and Ever Expanding
Posted by Tom in Environment, Government Regulation, Individual Freedom, Statism on January 31, 2011
Despite Obama’s call for regulatory reform, his actions speak, no shout, much louder than his words. Thomas Sowell in his RCP post, Spilled Milk, presents a case in point.
The EPA has decided that the regulatory authority that gives it the charge to guard against oil spills gives it the power to regulate any oil spills. The most recent example of this is the regulation of milk production!
Yes, milk, it turns out has oil in in, not the kind that powers diesel motors, but the kind that adds inches to your waist. Since “protection” is the EPA’s middle name, it has set out to protect you from milk spills. As of now, these are not the kind of spill you aren’t supposed to cry over, but the kind of spills that may cause serious flooding to mass population centers and, yes, farms!
It will now force farmers to comply with new regulations to file “emergency management” plans to deal with spilled milk! Seriously, farmers must “train “first responders” and build “containment facilities” if there is a flood of spilled milk.”
“Since there is no free lunch, all of this is going to cost the farmers both money and time that could be going into farming– and is likely to end up costing consumers higher prices for farm products.”
“It is going to cost the taxpayers money as well, since the EPA is going to have to hire people to inspect farms, inspect farmers’ reports and prosecute farmers who don’t jump through all the right hoops in the right order. All of this will be “creating jobs,” even if the tax money removed from the private sector correspondingly reduces the jobs that can be created there.”
The regulatory bureaucracy has no incentive to be efficient, no competition and no check on its operations or expansion. It has every incentive to expand and no incentive to contract. It seeks power and stretches the power it has.
Obama has appointed leftists that will regulate the CO2 you exhale and the free speech you profess to exercise over the internet. He is thus less honest than his rhetoric and a dangerous statist indeed.
Health Care, Right or Entitlement?
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Constitution, Entitlements, National Character, Statism on January 2, 2011
Is health care a right? How about health insurance? What about car care! What is a right and how is it distinguished from an entitlement?
Ross Kaminsky in his American Spectator post, Is It a Right or Isn’t It?, treats the rights issue with respect to health care. If health care is a right as both Obama and McCain asserted, then it is a positive right, one that is provided by others without regard to its being earned or paid for. He distinguishes this from negative rights such as those in our constitution, the right to be free from interference by others.
“The problem with Obama’s positive right formulation — as with all positive rights — is that one never knows where such a right ends, if or when such a right might be curtailed when it conflicts with citizens’ other (usually negative) rights.” Thus if health care is a right, how can we cut it off at the point society can no longer afford it? “This leaves proponents of a “right” in the uncomfortable position of having to say that it’s only a right up to a certain age, a certain degree of sickness, or a certain cost.” Kaminsky comes down against health care being a right.
Steven Yates, a philosopher, distinguishes between Rights Versus Entitlements in the Freeman blog.
“If we consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the right to pursue happiness; it does not offer a guarantee that one will achieve happiness. This makes all the difference in the world; for in a free society there can be no guarantee that effort will meet with success.”
“In other words, there is a hard and fast difference between rights and entitlements, a difference which the past seventy years of government policy has blurred to the point of indistinguishability. A free society must recognize the distinction. Otherwise, it has no way of knowing which claims of rights to acknowledge and which to reject as spurious. Legitimate rights are easy to recognize. They can be acted on by individuals without the assistance of government and without forcibly interfering with other individuals. Entitlements, on the other hand, cannot be fulfilled except through specific government actions which require forcible interference with others. Protecting rights is thus compatible with limited government. Granting entitlements requires an ever- expanding and increasingly meddlesome state. The more entitlements the state grants, the more it must extend itself to make good on its promises, and the greater its level of interference with people’s actions. Moreover, by interfering with successful actions, government becomes a drain on the individual’s energies. The individual must expend more and more effort to get the same personal benefits. This translates into a disincentive to produce, and when less is produced, there is less to seize and distribute. Soon, the state can no longer keep its promises.”
Since the dawn of the progressive era, we have seen the United States becoming more and more an entitlement dependent society. The recent passage of Obamacare on top of the bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security systems is only the last example. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the problem with entitlements, like socialism, is that eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend on them.