The Role of Government: Competing Ideologies

In January 1981, the United States was facing an inflation rate higher than today's; higher unemployment rate than today's; higher interest rates than today's; higher marginal tax rates than we have today; lower productivity than we experience today and lower GDP growth. Confronting that situation, Ronald Reagan said the following in his Inaugural Address:

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

On February 9, 2009, addressing our present economic crisis, Barack Obama pronounced the following:

It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.

Mr Obama could have instead responded to the weakened state of the private sector (debilitated largely due to government's intrusion into the marketplace) by stating that it will be the aim of his administration to refortify the private sector by cutting taxes and reducing government spending. But that would require Obama to trust individuals more than government. He does not. Reagan did.

Government by it's very nature injects politics into decision-making -- almost all acts and decisions have heavy doses of political calculation. Economic and financial problems require economic and financial solutions, not ones laden with political ploys. Hyping the crisis by loudly proclaiming that doom will befall us if we do not accept whatever Obama and Congress cook up is a sinister way to push through a political agenda that has little effect on the crisis itself, except to worsen it and therefore give rise to another round of socialist measures.

The excesses of government and politics have damaged us enough already. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid team is government on steroids. Political excesses can only lead to abuse and a loss of liberty, think of the madness of the French Revolution. Think of other instances when governments leeches on to a crisis as a power-grab excuse.

In his January 1996 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton announced that "the era of big government is over." I think of Mark Twain's rejoinder: "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

Watchtower Beams - The Week in Review

The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Political Spending Plan was approved by Congress and is due to be signed tomorrow. Contrary to what Mr Obama promised the bill had no transparency and no bipartisanship. However, it did have plenty of pork. Worst of all, this bill will not stimulate the economy, but it will gladden the hearts of the liberals.

Transparency is a term to be despised given its mindless overuse. But it was what Obama promised. He did not deliver. I do not think that one member of congress read the entire bill nor did anyone else. It was released after midnight on Thursday. The Bill was certainly not posted on a website for all to see, as promised. I guess it was simply too much of an emergency to approve 2011 spending programs. "If we do not approve these spending programs that will take effect beyond 2010 by next week, the economy will fall into the Greatest Depression."

Mr Obama's definition of bipartisanship appears to be having a 30 minute chat with Republicans and then expect them to go along with 95% of whatever Pelosi and Reid say. "We extended our hand and they just want to do the same ol' stuff of the past eight years. As Democrats, we have very good, fresh ideas from the 1930s on how to wreck an economy."

"This Stimulus Plan has no ear marks nor pet projects nor pork." It has loads of it. It is dripping with the sweet fat that falls from the ribs. 

This Bill was designed to "correct the mistakes from the awful Bush years" -- it was not meant to stimulate anything but the liberal base. This was 98% a political bill and 2% economic. However, by sending checks to so many who never paid income taxes, the Democrats figure to have bought sufficient votes to control national politics. Class warfare, baby -- it is as simple and disgusting as that. 

President Obama holds a press conference that is not a press conference. He is boring and a bit pedantic. His reply to a crisp 20 second question is a 13 minute weave through bits and pieces of his limited knowledge of the economy that makes re-runs of The Weather Channel appear interesting by comparison. He has thin skin when challenged to address the merits of his Plan on purely economic terms. That's because the Plan has a political, not an economic, rationale. Remember the "spread the wealth" off the cuff comment -- that is the plan.

Team Obama pre-selects questioners, has a seating chart, but apparently Obama can't read it because he calls out: "Where's Chuck? Where are you Chucky? Major? Major? Your turn Major." Good grief! What's next, Michelle Obama asking a question?: "Okay, let's see, who's next? Michelle? Is that you Michelle? Go ahead, ask a question."

Then we have Turbo Tax Tim Geithner and his much awaited presentation of TARP II, or whatever it is called these days. This is the man who members of congress thought we should look beyond his tax-cheating ways because only he had the brain, skills and ideas to save our economy. Well, he had no details other than "details will follow" and the guy came across as if he had only seen the outline for the bank plan for the first time that morning. I'm beginning to think I was wrong -- he did not stiff the IRS maliciously, he really may have been too stupid to properly understand the tax code. We're in worse shape than I thought. As Biden said (when ominously warning of an attack within the first six months of an Obama administration): "Gird your loins."

We now come to the politics of the 2010 Census. Historically under the control of the Secretary of Commerce, Obama wants to have the White House, Rahm Emanuel to be specific, have functional control of this. This would be totally consistent with all the other ploys and tactics contained in the Stimulus Bill with the sole purpose of garnering political power for the coming years. Republican Senator Judd Gregg was nominated for Secretary of Commerce and he correctly un-nominated himself upon seeing the sly tricks up the White House sleeves. Remember that Governor Bill Richardson was originally nominated for this cabinet post but he had "pay for play" scandal issues to deal with. So, who will be Commerce Secretary? "Chuck, where's Chuck? Howard? Where's Howard? Gimme Howard Dean."

Meanwhile, we travel further along the Road to Serfdom.

Change.

Only in D.C.

A tribunal organized by a gang of politicians excoriating bank CEOs for fiscal irresponsibility and general insensitivity to public opinion? Has congress not seen their dismal job approval numbers and the deficit heaved upon Americans?

This is truly the height of hypocrisy and shamelessness. Another step in the direction of socialism -- to demonize all corporate executives. They are all villains. Their decision-making authority should be replaced by the business wizards that roam through the halls of our capitol.

Mr Hope, President Snoozer

According to President Obama, failure to pass the Stimulus Bill will bring catastrophe. There will be a deepening disaster. We will suffer a depression that is irreversible. He is open to bipartisan discourse as long as the "other side" abandons its political and economic beliefs. In fact, the Republican Party should just go ahead and dissolve itself for the sake of bipartisanship. I guess the only thing we have to fear is insufficient fear. Keep hope alive.

Watching the press conference, I was most overwhelmed by how boring it was. Here we are, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the dawn of the Dark Ages, and the president came across dreadfully boring. His response to short questions were long-winded, protracted answers that made Lawrence Welk's bubbles appear exciting by comparison. 

$825 Billion for 4 million jobs = $200,000+ per job. Does this sound like a good deal?

Spending = Stimulus?

The House Democrats descended upon Williamsburg, Virginia this past week to drink, eat, sleep, carp, and sharpen their partisan swords. They called it a "retreat". Have no doubt that they directed barbs and invective toward companies that received bail-out monies that, in turn, had the verve and bad taste to, well, arrange for corporate meetings, or retreats. Apparently, the taxpayer money that the Democrats used came from taxpayers that reside in a different country or even a different planet. The hypocrisy is fascinating when it recedes from being repugnant.

When the Republicans held their retreat, they had the good sense to not invade taxpayer wallets. Lobbyists paid for their retreat. The Democrats criticized this as well. Apparently, it is far nobler to fleece the taxpayer.

Barack Obama joined the Dems on Thursday night, tossing out chunks of red meat to the pitchforked retreaters. Centerpiece to what was a disjointed speech by Mr Obama was a wrongheaded and jeering pronouncement that: "spending is stimulus." Really? Then why offer a $850 Billion stimulus bill and not, say, $10 Trillion? Spending is stimulus, so let's really stimulate the heck out of this economy. If spending is stimulus, then why criticize the Las Vegas trips by TARP-receiving companies. They are spending and that is stimulus.

While we're at it, do you think that the Dems believe that spending is stimulus only when it is government that is doing the spending (with our money)? An immediate 50% reduction in payroll taxes and a temporary vacation of the capital gains taxes would certainly jump-start spending. 

Democrats would argue that citizens would decide to do something evil like save if they had an opportunity to keep more of their money. Therefore, we should not be allowed to keep our money. Big Brother will handle that for us, thank you. 

On Meet the Press yesterday, David Gregory commented that a payroll tax cut would be "quite expensive". Okay, Mr Gregory, quite expensive to who? I have never heard a taxpayer complain that the tax cut they received was expensive. It is a founding tenet of the United States that the government is supposed to work for its citizens, not the other way around.

Come to think of it, it may make sense to leave spending to the political class. They are the nonpareil spenders -- world-class.

Dems Dislike (their) Taxes

Apparently Hilda Solis' hearing to become Secretary of Labor has been delayed. Seems her husband also decided to give himself a tax break. 

Geithner, Daschle, Killefer, and now Solis. Look at it this way -- it's comforting to know that these Democrats are opposed to taxes. 

"What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility..." 

Barack Obama

16 days ago -- Inauguration Speech

Whole Lotta Changin' Goin' On

Tom Daschle was to revamp America's health care. But he gave himself a tax cut so Obama had to dump him. Actually, Obama did not drop Mr Daschle for not paying taxes but rather because the controversy was a political liability. Change. 

Nancy Killefer was selected to be the Chief Performance Officer -- whatever that means. Ms Killefer also had tax payment problems so she made an exit. Change you can believe in.

We already discussed Tim Geithner, Mr IRS, and his reluctance to pay taxes until it became a requisite to the Treasury Secretary position. Turbo Change -- as in Turbo Tax.

The only thing we know for sure about the House-approved Stimulus Bill is that it was NOT a Stimulus Bill. This Liberal Interest Group Spending Bill was pushed by Nancy Pelosi and President Obama allowed her to run with it-- until it became abundantly evident that one would have to be on serious medication to truly think that the wish list on that bill would create jobs. The only thing that it was meant to stimulate was the Democratic Party core. Buy patronage with taxpayer money. Change is coming to Washington!

President Obama warned yesterday that failure to immediately pass the Stimulus Bill would result in economic catastrophe. Really? Even when the majority of spending is not planned until late 2010 and beyond? Change or I will scare you!

Then we have limits on executive pay. Why? Because taxpayer money is being infused into some of these companies. Okay then, taxpayer money is paying for White House food services, dry cleaning, and a ton of other expenses. Let's put a cap on that. Yes we can!

Once government decides that it can dictate terms to all enterprises or programs that it funds, in the name of the taxpayer of course, then there is no limit to Big Brother's overreach. For example, Obama is committed to government's take-over of health care. Government will pay for your health care. Ergo, government can dictate terms and caps. "Hey, you, that's enough ice cream! Unhealthy! Makes you fat. Here, eat some arugula. It's good for you." Change. The putrid, early winds of an emerging socialist state.

The Politics of Shame

"It is shameful".  That's how President Obama chastised Wall Street bonuses. I wish that for once these politicians and talking heads would stop using the amorphous term Wall Street. Speak up, man, what firms are you singling out? Whose pay was shameful and how much do you calculate was overpay? Just drop the populist finger-pointing and speak clearly. Yes, what's that word? Transparency. That's it.

I propose that the use of taxpayer money to pay for all the Inauguration Day excess was equally shameful to many taxpayers. Consider how many Americans could have been bailed-out of imminent foreclosure if the money had been used for main street and not Pennsylvania Avenue. Consider the cost, whatever it is, of the "bipartisan Super Bowl Party" Obama is holding at the White House tonight. Shameful! More than one person can play the populist game.