Liberty Maven

More and more people today have the mindset that they are owed a good life, free from the burdens of their own debt; that they are entitled to what others have, even if they haven’t worked hard; that an American President has the power and authority to cure all their ills.  Meanwhile, Ron Paul campaigns on the opposite: personal responsibility, Constitutionally-limited government, etc.  How in the world can he expect support by enough people to get elected?  Clearly he cannot, especially given some of these sad-but true examples (most notably the first one):

Obama took office and immediately began waving around his huge stimulus package. “It is really inappropriate behavior–way too big”, said Ron Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas.

The Democrats in the House adored Obama’s package. Only 12 Democrats shunned the package. Not a single Republican was turned on by it.

Obama then exposed it to the Senate. He met privately with Republican Senators to show it off. They came away unimpressed.

Republicans chose a leader to show off a package of their own. Even though they complained it was too big, they revealed an even larger package.

Meanwhile, the citizens of America are starting to get worried. And for good reason.

It seems that the longer the debate goes on the bigger the package will be. And they know that the bigger the package the more it’s going to hurt.

Wait… are we still talking about the economy?

No matter, the people always get screwed in the end.

Hmm… that last bit didn’t come out quite right either. I think I’ll just stop typing.

As a child I learned a hard lesson. I learned that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. I learned it through failure. I learned it the hard way. Luckily I didn’t burn down the house we lived in at the time.

A friend was over and we were playing with a lighter. He flicked on the flame and started waving it back and forth in front of me trying to scare me. It worked. I was scared and didn’t want to get burned so I felt I had to do something, anything, to put that flame out. So I reached for the nearest item I thought would help me extinguish the flame–a bottle of nail polish remover.

I splashed the liquid out and over the lighter. I watched with fascinated horror as the droplets caught fire and fell to the carpet, catching the carpet on fire right next to our old couch. Luckily we were able to put it out before the couch caught fire.

It occurred to me recently that this event taught me something quite profound–that “doing something” isn’t always the best answer. With the exception of Ron Paul, our government is full of do something, no matter the cost, representatives. I don’t think they do it just for kicks. I think they mean well, but well-meaning drastic measures can be catastrophic when there is too much focus on the today with little regard for the tomorrow. They always seem to miss the big picture, the larger consequences of their actions.

Read More »

The title of this article says it all.  History has proven on quite a number of occasion that Keynesian policies are disastrous, but yet we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that this time it will work.  Jeffrey A. Tucker’s article on LewRockwell.com requires no more introduction…

There was a time, some 50–60 years ago, that many people thought smoking was good for you. Today we know that this was just an excuse we liked because it provided cover for what we wanted to do: smoke. Today, people smoke anyway even though we know for sure that it is not good for us. At least the illusions are gone.

Keynesianism is both similar and different. Sixty years ago, governments attempted macroeconomic stimulation through spending, debt accumulation, and eventual inflation and taxation. They thought it was good for us. It turns out that it wasn’t good. Nothing has failed so often and in some many places and under as many unique situations as Keynesianism.

Why did governments continue to do it, and why do they do it today? Because they want to, and for the same reason that people smoke. The subjective pleasure it provides the institution exceeds the serious health risks. The heck of it is that they still claim, despite all evidence, that it is good for us too. [Continue reading at lewrockwell.com]

In typical hypocritical fashion, the government and media make a huge stink of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi-style pyramid scheme, but they conveniently fail to recognize or point out the fact that their cherished boondoggle called the Social Security System is exactly the same thing.  Liberty Maven Liberty Hero Walter E. Williams remarks on this hypocrisy in his Washington Times commentary today.  Here’s a snippet:

We have a national Ponzi scheme where Congress collects about $785 billion in Social Security taxes from about 163 million workers to send out $585 billion to 50 million Social Security recipients. Social Security’s trustees tell us the surplus goes into a $2.2 trillion trust fund to meet future obligations. The problem is whatever difference between Social Security taxes and benefits paid out is spent by Congress. What the Treasury Department does is give the Social Security Trust Fund nonmarketable “special issue government securities” that are simply bookkeeping entries or IOUs.

According to Social Security trustee estimates, around 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected. That means one of two things, or both, must happen: Congress will raise taxes and/or slash promised Social Security benefits. Each year the situation will worsen since the number of retirees is predicted to increase relative to the number in the work force paying taxes. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree, in 1950 there were 16, today there are 3 and in 20 or 30 years there will be 2 or fewer workers per retiree.

Read the whole commentary.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Economic growth is the result of creating new wealth, not redistributing existing wealth.” — Jeff Jacoby

Subject: The strange thing about public opinion

Polls suggest weak public support for the “stimulus” package. Only a minority favors it, while the majority either opposes it, or is undecided.

This is amazing given the constant drumbeat for the bill. It raises an important question. Where would we be if the case against the “stimulus” was heard to the same extent as the arguments for it?

We constantly lose debates because our arguments aren’t heard. And yet, the strange thing about public opinion is that our positions constantly do well in polls even though our arguments aren’t heard.

This suggests to us that we could win on issue after issue if only we could organize and activate the latent natural support for our positions. Better yet, we believe we could increase that support far above its current level.

If our message was seen and heard by everyone, everywhere, every day, we might even be able to forge a social consensus.

In the current case, if only a small portion of those who oppose this bill were to expend time and money making the case against it the playing field would be leveled. We believe this would move public opinion solidly against the “stimulus” package.

If everyone who opposes this bill were to pressure their elected representatives to reject it, the “stimulus” package wouldn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell. We’d have a repeat of what happened with the immigration bill, when public pressure defeated the bill and nearly brought one Senator to tears.

It should be embarrassing that so many Americans could work-up the motivation to act against an immigration bill, but remain silent on this “stimulus” package, which is, by any measure, vastly more important. We have met the enemy and they are us.

Read More »

Tom Daschle withdrew from consideration for Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary yesterday. Does anyone actually believe he willingly withdrew?

The problem here is too obvious–the wrong man withdrew. Who cares if some guy lobbying to be in charge of unconstitutional government health care didn’t pay taxes? Well, I care a bit, but not as much as I care that another man who didn’t pay taxes properly has already been confirmed as Treasury Secretary.

Timothy Geithner is a stain on Obama’s presidency. Apparently, one of many current and future stains. Geithner, thanks to Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, and Congress is the overseer of the U.S. economy. If Obama believes he made a mistake in nominating Daschle, how can he in good conscience allow Geithner to remain Treasury Secretary?

Obama is getting heaps of praise from the blind Left for admitting he made a mistake on Daschle. That praise is completely unjustified if he allows Geithner to remain. He should ask Geithner to step down.

In the video interview Obama did with Anderson Cooper he claims he doesn’t want there to be a double standard, that the politically powerful should not be treated any differently. The man is simply performing political misdirection. The fact that Geithner remains in place illustrates that Obama does not believe his own words.

Until Geithner is gone Obama is a hypocrite.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “White man cuts off end of rug, sews it to other end, thinks rug is longer.”
– an old Native American joke about “daylight savings time”

Subject: Trickle-down hypocrisy

The Democrats sneer at Republican proposals to cut upper-bracket tax rates. They call it trickle-down economics. But the Democrat’s stimulus plan is trickle-down economics too.

Much of the spending will go to huge institutions like construction companies and research firms. It will have to trickle-down from there to the rest of us.

When Democratic politicians talk about the “multiplier effect” of government spending, what they’re really saying is “I believe in trickle-down economics.”

The Republicans are just as bad. They may like tax cuts, but they also run huge deficits. The money they borrow can’t be used by businesses to expand production and hiring. The Republicans negate the economic benefit of their tax cuts through the economic harm of their borrowing.

When Republican politicians say “deficits don’t matter,” as they constantly do, what they’re really saying is “the benefits of deficit spending will trickle-down to the taxpayers.”

Both parties believe in trickle-down economics. Both parties think they can cut off one end of the economic rug, sew it to the other end, and the rug will be longer.

We think differently.

Read More »

Ron Paul was just on FOX Radio with Judge Napolitano and had an excellent discussion about the collectivist political climate in which we live. Both men were brutally honest about the hard truths free market lovers face today, but both also have hope that things will change.

One of my favorite questions was seemingly innocuous. The Judge asked Ron Paul, “Should we return to the gold standard?” Ron Paul clarified his own position quite well.

It is refreshing to hear Paul tell us how he truly feels rather than listening to him get attacked for supposedly blindly supporting a return to the old gold standard that had its problems.

Listen to the interview below. It is just under 10 minutes long.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

I’ve just finished reading a book that was much too short simply because I adored it and well… it was too short. The title should earn an award in its own right, “In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace“.

The book’s author David Post weaves the history of America as seen through Thomas Jefferson’s eyes tightly around the history, growth, and governance of the Internet. And what about this moose?

Read More »