March 18, 2010
The healthcare reconciliation bill may be coming up for a vote soon. You have shown your true colors by voting for the Slaughter Strategy: You believe the ends justify the means. I urge you to vote ‘no’ on the reconciliation bill.
The sleights-of-hand, bribes and backroom deals used to push Obamacare through are an affront to the rule of law. Anyone, including you, who votes for such trash deserves to be tarred and feathered.
If you cared to read history, from the days of the French Revolution all top-down and articulated reason-driven programs such as Obamacare have been abject failures, leading to widespread misery and bloodshed. The untold millions killed in the name of ‘caring for the People’ should be all the incentive needed to vote against this monstrosity.
A ‘yes’ vote for Obamacare will serve to condemn our fellow citizens and their descendants to a life of servitude and penury, if not extermination. Their blood will be on *your* hands. Vote ‘NO’!
March 12, 2010
The Democrat’s panicked push for healthcare “reform” has deteriorated to the point of using the “Slaughter Strategy” where the House will deem that the Senate bill as passed without an actual vote by the House. This is most likely an unconstitutional act and should cause revulsion in anyone who values the rule of law. Once again, we have a demonstration of the left’s philosophy of ‘the ends justify the means.’
Now look at Betsy Markey. It would be nice to hear her position on the Senate bill, but she surely won’t take one without kissing Speaker Pelosi’s ring and getting her blessing. However, it is illuminating that Markey has nothing to say on the process of these healthcare shenanigans. What a craven parasite.
March 12, 2010
Not surprisingly, the Feds are looking at ways of getting their fingers into your 401(k) retirement savings. The Treasury is proposing to take money from 401(k) accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities paying a 3% return. Look here and here for more discussion. It is absolutely astounding how little play a proposal like this gets in the major media.
March 12, 2010
The US Constitution was designed to create a republic with a weak central government and strong member states. The Bill of Rights reflects this principle quite well, listing rights that the citizens inherently possess and the government cannot infringe upon. Barack Obama has described the Constitution as having a “blind spot” in that it doesn’t specify the things that government must do for the citizens. Look at FDR’s Second Bill of Rights for an example of what Obama would like the government to supply to the citizens. These are confiscatory or “positive” rights that require the redistribution of the fruits of the labor, i.e. property, of one party to another party deemed to have a deficit of the same fruits. Judge Andrew Napolitano gives us great explanation here:
Take housing as an example. The negative right view of housing that we’re all familiar with is that you have option of finding housing proportionate to your willingness and ability to pay. This can mean purchasing, renting, staying with family or living under a bridge. A positive right to housing means that the government is obligated to provide you housing. How is this to be accomplished? How about things like electricity, water, natural gas and septic, which are all needed to make your government-supplied dwelling livable?
A system such as this would require a government body to weigh all the various and ever-changing needs of the people that come before it to demand housing. Think about this: Once you have obtained your new pad, what is to prevent the commissars from deciding that some other family has a greater need for your house than you do and that you must decamp for another ‘home’ deemed more appropriate for your situation?
Liberty and freedom cannot survive such a regime.
March 6, 2010
Since the health care debate is still raging, one thing that gets overlooked are the effects of state-mandated coverages. In Colorado there are 46 mandates, according to “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007,” which adds as much as 50% to the cost of basic health care. As a single male, it seems rather strange to be forced to have coverage for maternity. This article discusses several aspects of the problems created by these mandates.
This is one more example of what happens when government meddling occurs and the ‘concentrated interest’ vs. ‘diffused costs’ dynamic takes over.
February 23, 2010
The Congress has recently raised the official debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion. This amounts to about 100% of GDP and is a sign of trouble ahead. What is rarely mentioned is that this total does not include future unfunded obligations which run the total into the neighborhood of $100 trillion. This level of debt is unsustainable and the day of reckoning may well occur this decade. How can such massive debts ever hope to be paid? There are four basic methods available to address the debt.
- Rapid GDP growth
- Rising inflation
- Increased taxes
- Outright default
As illustrated by the Laffer Curve and confirmed by history, the current level of taxation is near the point where higher levels will depress GDP growth. Additionally, the sheer size of government at all levels will make it very difficult for the economy to grow sufficiently to reduce the ratio of debt/GDP. This leaves default or inflation as the realistic options. Outright default is politically unfeasible, requiring the government to renege on future Social Security and Medicare benefits, and current interest payments on the debt. Inflation, which is a quiet, long-term form of default, is in all likelihood what the US will be experiencing in the future. This paper demonstrates how this can be accomplished with a surprisingly modest level of inflation. When you hear the term “quantitative easing” in the news, you’re seeing inflation being imposed on the economy. In an inflationary environment debtors will be relatively better off, while savers will be crushed.
February 23, 2010
Now that the Jobs Bill (aka Stimulus 2) is being proposed, it’s a good time to look at the results of the first stimulus and reasons why that bill failed to have effects put forth by the Obama administration. Of the $787 billion allocated for stimulus, $186 billion has been spent. A small of amount of this was allocated for infrastructure ($31 billion), which does have true economic benefit by increasing efficiency and productivity. The remainder of this is simple transfer payments, largely to the states, which is the source of the “created or saved” numbers touted by administration. The “saved” numbers includes teachers, police and fire fighters who might have been laid off without the stimulus. Notice how pay cuts to these groups never entered the discussion, while pay cuts are always an option in the private sector. The prime goal of the stimulus was to prevent unemployment from going above 8%. To the administration’s surprise, it hovers around 10%. Why is this?
Every time these large “jobs” programs are proposed, they inevitably fall prey to Bastiat’s “broken window fallacy.” The fundamental problem with jobs programs is that they take funds from the economy at large (reducing employment generally) and put funds into politically-favored jobs. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation does a great job of exploring this phenomenon in this paper. As anyone who has raised living entities (human, animal or plant) knows it is quite easy to stunt or kill growth and impossible to force growth. The best that can be done is to create a nurturing environment where growth can occur, and then hope and pray for good results. All governments that believe they can force economic growth with “jobs” and “stimulus” are arrogant, ignorant, and doomed to failure.
February 16, 2010
Welcome! This blog was created to comment on current events around the world that can impact the citizens of Northern Colorado from the perspective of one whom believes in God and the founding documents of the United States. Praise and brickbats will be laid upon all parties, irrespective of race, gender or political party, when called for. The progressive viewpoint put forth by the mainstream press and government agencies will subjected to the most criticism.
The US is approaching a point where our way of life will be drastically changed and not for the better. An open discussion of the issues is critical if the country is to survive these changes and give our descendants a chance to prosper. We know enough history to see that our current path cannot be continued even though the progressive mindset is that the “experts” in charge will tax here, regulate there and nirvana will be ours. Good luck with that!