Another Obama Speech, more Shenanigans

I have not been writing my comments on current events lately, partly because I am too busy, but also because there has not been much new. Current political events are merely elaborations on the themes of one or two years ago. For instance, see my post of August 11, 2009, Mixed-Up Economy: We Are All Blood Suckers Now. The war of ideas between the Keynesian outlook and the Free market/Small Government school rages even more today.

Another theme of this blog, which has never been as obvious as now, is the observation that generally liberals accuse conservatives of doing exactly what they do, or plan on doing soon. (Such as their accusations of "uncivil" remarks from conservatives.) Today, Obama waved a newspaper and stated that the Republicans oppose his so-called jobs bill because it is to their political advantage, without regard to the damage to the country of not going along with his latest scheme. In actuality, it would seem to me very politically courageous to oppose Obama's proposal to hand out more stimulus money. For conservatives, who believe that less government intervention in the economy will ultimately bring the best results, it could be political suicide to advocate abandonment of bailouts and other government largess.

On the other hand, it may not be difficult to make the point that the "jobs bill" would not save any jobs, and is intended primarily to save Obama's job. He asks that our congressional representatives pass the bill right away, presumably before they have time to read it, just as they passed the other masterpieces of the Harry Reid bill writing factory. Those bills are never what we are told they are. We have to pass the bill "to see what is in it," as Nancy Pelosi tells us. (For instance, we just learned that if congress does not adopt the suggestions of the super-committee of bipartisan spending cutters, we will automatically get cuts to the military and cuts to what medical providers are paid by medicare. It was advertised that there would be cuts to medicare but it was not explained how the cuts would come about. Doctor fees are already cut to the bone.) No telling what will be lurking in the hundreds of pages of the latest Obamination.

What does seem obvious is that the new bill is the same as the old bill. It is a way of looting the treasury and giving the proceeds to his constituents, i.e. to serve Obama's political ends. The primary constituents to be rewarded are, as usual, the unions, especially government unions. There was little or no economic stimulant effect the first time. The Austrian school of free market economics, as well as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, would explain that only the free market can allocate recourse's to fill our most urgent needs. Government intervention only makes things worse with unintended consequences. Bailing out state government workers, for instance, only prolongs the problem of wages and benefits being too high. A 5% cut in government salaries would be a better way to avoid government layoffs. Longterm changes in government pension systems also are needed as soon as possible.

Glenn Beck had a guess the speech segment this morning. He played cuts from Obama's speech advancing the 2009 stimulus bill and his speech the other day pushing the "jobs bill'" You had to guess which speech was which. The only difference that I heard was the new strident, almost threatening tones of the president. He seemed to be ordering congress to pass this latest bill. I guess he was desperate, and ought to be.

Still more Chickenshit

I was considering renaming this blog. Unfortunately, due to recent developments, that seems a little premature.

I have not posted here for a month. That's not because there has been nothing to write about. On the contrary, reading the local paper and other mainline media, there seems to be a great need to set the record straight. In fact, there seems to be so much misinformation and disinformation that it is hard to know where to begin. The tactic of the mainstream press seems to be to overwhelm the debate. By the time there is a response, they have moved on to promulgate some other factoid (something that sounds like a fact but not necessarily is) or error in reasoning. That's why Rush calls them the drive bys.

One example of an error in reasoning is represented by a proposition that has been often repeated of late. To wit: high levels of taxation are good for the economy. Hilary Clinton said so and now all the liberals are saying it. I guess that's what they mean by a talking point. Their proof of this is that during the Clinton administration, we had much higher income tax rates for the highest brackets. During that period, we had balanced federal budgets, even surpluses, and economic growth. This is an example of the post hoc fallacy. That is an error in reasoning involving the inference that if one event follows another, the first event must have caused the second. (The full name is post hoc ergo propter hoc -- after that, therefore on account of that.)

This is where the difficulties in unravelling this claims come in. I have not checked the economic data so I do not know if it was taxes collected from these higher tax brackets that brought about a healthy federal budget and economy (I doubt it). I seem to recall that Republican, Newt Gingrich was speaker of the Republican dominated House of Representatives. He proposed his 'contract with America,' which the press called a 'contract on America.' The House cut all of Clinton's spending proposals. They passed Welfare Reform over his multiple vetoes. In other words, Clinton was dragged to a balanced budget kicking and screaming. This and the fact that not many people paid the high income tax rates due to various tax avoidance strategies was probably what happened. As I said, I need to do some more research. This is one reason why the Austrian School believes that theories based upon mathematical economic analysis are mainly invalid. Statistics can show what happened but but not why. Common sense reasoning based upon observation of human behavior can tell us more.

Much more has been happening in the politicoeconomical realm. There's the Mosque at ground zero and its opponents, who the press portray as conservative bigots. There's the fed's plan to monetize the debt (which this blog said would eventually happen in an attempt to support the dollar.) There's the talk of further stimulus bills; the liberal talking point is that we have really not tried this yet, there was only the Bush (and therefore totally wrong headed and ineffective) TARP spending plan. Seems to me I recall a lot of Obama attempts at stimulus spending also, not to mention bailout/payoffs (e.g. to the auto workers). Just lately, there was the 'teacher bail-out.' This was a multi billion federal payment to the states so they could avoid cutting teacher salaries. Along with the funds come a federal mandate not to cut education spending by the states that accept the aid, including in subsequent years. (Seems there was a post about that here; Washington State did not want money offered earlier because of the strings attached.)

There has been much on the encouraging side as well. David Limbaugh's latest book catalogues the setbacks to liberty suffered by this nation due to the Obama policies. The book apparently addresses many of the catastrophic events that have lately befallen us; even an entire book is not nearly enough. Another recent happening was Glenn Beck's 'Restoring Honor' rally in Washington, DC. I wish I could have been there.

Free Trade: No Stimulus Please

The following quotation and link to an article by William Graham Sumner refers to free international trade as opposed to trade barriers such as tariffs. He also talks about other modes of government intervention and the principals discussed apply to any government intervention aimed at helping a particular party to obtain a better position in the market place. This could refer to government aid for the biggest industrial corporations or for workers in a given trade. His clearly stated view is that any government aid meant to stimulate one enterprise, hurts others, the national economy as a whole, and eventually the favored enterprise itself:

"The free trader further holds that protection is all a mistake and delusion to those who think that they win by it, in that it lessens their self-reliance and energy and exposes their business to vicissitudes that, not being incident to a natural order of things, cannot be foreseen and guarded against by business skill; also that it throws the business into a condition in which it is exposed to a series of heats and chills, and finally, unless a new stimulus is applied, reduced to a state of dull decay. They therefore hold that even the protected would be far better off without it." -- William Graham Sumner; from the essay "What is Free Trade," first published in The Forgotten Man and Other Essays (1918). http://mises.org/story/3604