The Politics of Boycotting

Those who are antipathetic toward the new Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law clamor for punitive action against the State of Arizona. A favorite call to action involves boycotting The Grand Canyon State. Already a girl's basketball team from Illinois was blocked from attending a tournament in Arizona because Illinois politicians find the Arizona legislative action repugnant. Fanatic hordes yell and rally to recruit "no vacations in Arizona" members. (Perhaps 1% actually planned to visit Arizona in the first place) So boycott they shall.

However, proponents of the Arizona boycott look an awful like those same cats that routinely decry the United States embargo (boycott) against trading with Cuba. Reason against Cuban embargo? It only hurts the Cuban people; therefore, it is an act of cruelty. Much better to engage the Cuban regime so that they can see the light of democracy.

Cuba Si! Arizona No!

May I suggest that these dazed and disturbed political agitators redirect their offensive vile by calling for a boycott against that country whose policy it is to kill those who wish to enter its sovereign via its southern border. The country? Why, Mexico of course.

Hypocrisy

Lectures on political civility by the Trash Talker-in-Chief and chiding on the importance of preventive health care provided by a chain smoker? What next, lessons on business ethics by Bernie Madoff?

"We inherited ..."

I don't know about you, but President Obama's whining about inheriting a $1.3 Trillion deficit is getting to be quite boring and a real sign of the hollowness that resides inside the man. Somehow he manages to complain about the $1.3 Trillion while in the same breath he defends the almost $6 Trillion he will leave if a one-term president and $10 Trillion if we a two-termer.

New technology alert --- at last night's press conference, Obama upgraded to a jumbotron at the back of the room. Apparently he was sensitive to the accusations of over-reliance on the teleprompter.

Bonus Vengeance - Soviet Style

So, certain members of congress and the Obama Administration are a bit nervous that the pitchfork-wielding populists may decide to point their weapons at them. After all, it was members of congress (Chris Dodd comes to mind) and members of the administration (Turbo Tax Tim for instance) that explicitly sanctioned the now scandalous AIG bonuses. I cannot imagine why they would think that this was any of their fault.

So, what do they do? Deflect of course - the tried and true political rat maneuver. Stand atop the Capitol building and the Treasury building and point at anyone and everyone. Divert criticism with vigor and with a megaphone and with a teleprompter. Whatever it takes -- retribution at all costs. Evade responsibility, in this the Obama proclaimed New Era of Responsibility. Blame others. 

Yes, blame others even by violating contract laws and the constitution. Abrogate existing contracts that they themselves approved -- even if they were inserted in bills that they irresponsibly passed without reading. Pass a bastardize excise/income tax on an ex post facto basis. And, for good measure, punitively tax only a select few -- no need to be concerned with Bills of Attainder when you are trying to save your own skin.

Joining the chorus of the usual suspects of Democrats supporting this Moscow-style action was a group of Republicans that is demonstrating their own lack of principles and respect for law and free markets.

Obama was off in Hollywood having fun on the Leno show getting into trouble for his total ineptness when not accompanied by his trusty teleprompter. Even Jimmy Carter's "malaise speeches" are starting to sound refreshing right about now. Good grief.

Change.

The Mission

For Barack Obama, social re-engineering through government control of the commanding heights of America's economy (1970s British socialism) is apparently his presidential mission. 

Income redistribution, pointed-finger harangues against "greedy capitalists", and demagoguery on the health care issue are part of his strategic design to incite class warfare and endear himself to the masses by making them forever dependent on his largesse (using our money of course). 

Rising tax rates has been the traditional way to redistribute income -- it lowers after-tax income. Not content with that, the recent limit on executive pay for certain private companies is a ploy to redistribute by controlling pre-tax income.

President Obama cares more about his mission than he does economic prosperity. He cares more about changing how the pie is sliced than he cares about the size of the pie. 

Alas, equal poverty is nobler than unequal prosperity. 

Change.

Squashing Possibilities of a Recovery

It has been said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. So is the case for the Obama administration's fervor to recklessly and savagely super-size the role of the federal government. 

Barack Obama delivered a huge spending bill thinly disguised as a stimulus package aimed at favoring run-of-the-mill democratic hand-outs. Now comes a budget filled with pork and candy for the same and more democratic interest groups. 

Our economic house is on fire and the Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief dedicates time to conjuring ways to spend more money on health care for the planet and controlling the global warming effects of sheep belches and cow flatulents.

Obama casually shrugs off plummeting stock markets as merely "day-to-day gyrations of the markets, similar to political tracking polls". Mr President, these are the life savings of Americans you are callously dismissing.

To counteract massive deficits we will doubtlessly incur massive tax increases. It will be touted by Barack Obama as a "I have no choice but to ..." type of decision. Then he will have succeeded in his grand plan of crowding out the private sector in favor of his beloved government sector. 

In truth, government can only spend money when by first taking it from someone else, either via debt or tax. If foreign debt, then other sovereigns will have a greater say in our country's affairs. If debt from American citizens, then that is money that cannot be loaned or invested in private business. If taxed, then that is the government's way of saying: "Hey you idiot, I know you earned the money but we, the government knows how to best spend it." We, the people, are at grave risk.

Mr Obama just last week, in a rare non-teleprompter moment, said that now may be a good time to buy stocks because the "profit-earnings ratio is good." That ratio does not exist in the finance world and only provided insight into his deep cluelessness. By the way, without a teleprompter all we hear is a series of "aaahhhhhhs".

The President is more concerned with a socialist, government-grab agenda than he is the prosperity of the country. Americans will catch on because they are smarter.

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."