Recap and a New Year

After a year of this blog and anticipating heated election year debates, there are a couple “rules” to consider. First, it is appropriate to criticize politicians and government policies where they interfere with freedom and individual rights, but not simply because of party affiliation or mere disagreement. Second, we need to adhere to proper definitions in discussion; that can lead to greater agreement.

It is a fact that taxing the rich more will not even begin to solve our debt problems; but it will lead to a reduction in private jobs and harm the economy. If we have even begun to be lazy as Obama wants us to believe, it would only be because of attempts to redistribute the wealth and to punish our producers. Blame Obama’s statist policies (that discourage innovation and production) for the most prolonged economic downturn since FDR.

The Occupy WS gang did not materialize due to under-taxing the rich. A Marxist group organized it with the explicit goal to continue the fight for statism. Their call for “social justice” is merely a call for the use of force to obtain the unearned; that is injustice.

Government cannot create a net job gain. Government jobs are created at the expense of more efficient private jobs; the net is reduced productivity/jobs and economic harm. Thus, all of Obama’s “job creating” proposals are theoretical failures. He wants to “eat” private jobs and have them too.

Education is a critical factor in job opportunity: unemployment today for college graduates is as low as 1/3 the rate for the non-educated. It is government’s interference in education that causes increased college costs and student loans - thus reduced opportunities.

Carol evaluated opportunities for success in our culture in a recession context - exactly what I said we can’t do. In the broader context, opportunities are not worse than they used to be; expectations are simply greater. People want to eat their cake while expecting more of it left.

American exceptionalism is still real, not a “fashionable phrase” for Republicans. But growing statism is a sure way to destroy it and the individual opportunities it affords. Let’s hope that Americans will continue to believe that individual freedom is more important than forced egalitarianism, multiculturalism and the welfare state.

Remember “hope and change”? Perhaps now you can see that “hope” was ‘hope we don’t see Obama’s ideology and tactics to implement it’, and “change” was ‘implementation of statism’.

“The defining issue of our time” per Obama is growing inequality in the US.

He invoked Theodore Roosevelt’s “new nationalism” while asking for “fairness” for the American people. He argued that the Republican party is one of narrow self-interest with no consideration for working-class Americans, and that it says “we are better off when everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.” He believes that “we are greater together than we are on our own”, and that we can’t have winners because everyone can’t be a winner. This is a good place to begin the new year.

Land Of Opportunity

Our Founding Fathers created a capitalist system that provided the greatest level of freedom and protection of each individual’s rights. That, in turn, provided each with the greatest opportunity to achieve his goals and realize his dreams. 

“Opportunity” means the potential to achieve with a probability correlated with one’s ambition, skill set and perseverance. This must be distinguished from ”assurance” (or a guarantee) of achievement. Such guarantees are only made by government to privileged groups in the form of services and products.  

This is yet another way to distinguish between forms of government: capitalism (with “opportunity”) and statism (with “assurance”); or between their moral codes: the right to the pursuit of happiness vs. happiness itself (via guarantees/force).   

In illustrating this point, focus should not be on those who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide for themselves - do not have any “opportunity.” There will always be (preferably non-government) financial support for them. 

If you are looking for a fundamental difference between the Tea Party and the OWS protestors, look no further: it is about “opportunity” vs. “assurance.” The Tea Party wants government to better uphold our rights, eliminate unessential spending and strengthen our “land of opportunity.” The OWS protestors want to redefine “opportunity” to mean “assurance”; they want: 

Economic equality: that goes far beyond our founding documents that call for “equal rights” - equal opportunity. One does not have a right to the wealth of others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wealth disparity, as long as wealth is earned and everyone has the opportunity to profit from the economic system. The latter is only possible under capitalism; today’s mixed economy places many restrictions on individuals with some being irrationally disadvantaged. 

Jobs: they require effort, not sitting in a park. Employers provide opportunities to work for those who earn them; jobs are not a handout. The better jobs require education and a competitive edge; and the unemployment rate for those with a college education is as low as 1/3 the rate for the non-educated. While everyone cannot afford such education, there are many opportunities to be trained pre or post-hiring for those with sufficient desire and ambition. 

Health Care: as noted before, no such product or service can be a right. Our problem is one of high cost due to government intervention in that industry. The focus needs to be on creating the broadest opportunity to purchase HC insurance; and that requires a free market that can enable reform of the system to make insurance affordable for all, retain high quality of care, and minimize such intervention. To retain any semblance of freedom and opportunity, the Supreme Court must overturn the ObamaCare mandate. 

Thanksgiving thought: be thankful that only a fraction of 1% of us are pretending to represent the 99% protesting against the top 1% (of wage earners). Stop expecting the unearned and envying the top 1%, respect individual rights, and take advantage of this land of opportunity to be productive.

Cronyism

Politically speaking, cronyism is government favoring of selected individuals or groups, resulting in financial and/or political gain by the favored. It involves political payback, results in increased costs to taxpayers, and is immoral.  

With the separation of State and economics and a full recognition of individual rights, cronyism would essentially be eliminated: politicians would be completely disincentivized from such favoritism. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism despite the disparaging misnomer “crony-capitalism.” Call it “crony-socialism.” 

All the attention is on the corporate/private sector side. Government administration/Congress favors certain corporations with loans, subsidies or bailouts; the corporations are then pressured to sacrifice their capitalist principles in “cooperation.” Other corporations are punished with over-regulation and controls; that invites them to lobby to defend their interests. Depending on political views, contributions, bribes and compromises, some are advantaged by their lobbying efforts. Some will certainly attempt to use the political process to gain competitive advantage.  

The result, of course, is corruption, increased costs to all parties, and great harm to our economy and taxpayers - all due to government’s statist policies. In a small way, the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors see the true harm done. But due to their statist bias, they are primarily attacking the wrong side of the problem: government’s role is being ignored. 

Also ignored are the following forms of cronyism that further endanger our rights. 

In all efforts to redistribute wealth, government favors selected groups of people over others; and in the end, such efforts hurt the favored more than those intended to be harmed. A perfect example is ObamaCare: in an attempt to favor the uninsured poor and middle class, it is an entitlement that will raise health care costs and taxes for all, and lower the quality of care; and many employers will drop their insurance plans, leaving employees without their lowest cost insurance option. It also subjectively favors businesses with mandate waivers. 

In the constant plea for “fairness,” some are meant to be sacrificed for favored others. How can it possibly be “fair” to favor non-productive over productive individuals? That is a ruse to disguise the real and immoral goal of economic equality. 

Public unions are advantaged at the expense of the private sector. If “fairness” is to be an issue, why no outcry about union executive salaries that are greater than most corporate employees? 

Government constantly favors special interests via legislation, regulation and tax code. E.g. environmentalists and green energy vs. oil/gas/coal industries. 

And we certainly cannot overlook individual payback in the form of appointments, grants et al resulting from election support. 

We must eliminate all of the above forms of cronyism; in fact, it would also be cronyism if only selected portions of it were eliminated. If we could let the free market - not irrational politicians - determine winners and losers, and supply and demand for products and services, then we could realize rapid economic growth.

Is Obama a Friend of Israel?

President Obama continues his lies in his new AttackWatch web page. And foremost among them is the claim that he is a friend of Israel. Highlighted below are AttackWatch headings that need disputing. 

·       Political leaders in both countries have acknowledged his support. 

What else could they say? That is certainly no evidence of support. 

·      Robert Gates testified that Obama has done more to improve our relationship with Israel than any President in the last 45 years. 

In the testimony provided, Gates acknowledged that our partnership with Israel is critical to our national security. But no evidence of Obama’s steps to improve the relationship can be found. 

We all know of the evidence to the contrary: he has pressured Israel to concede to Palestinian demands (enhanced by Obama himself) and to accept a Palestinian State with 1967 borders which would seriously threaten Israel’s security (despite “mutually agreed swaps”). He has appeased Muslim States that support terrorism and even provided them financial aid; yet he once threatened to cancel aid to Israel. 

·      Obama said “the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unbreakable…. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels…. It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.” 

His actions are much louder than his words. As a statist - with a transparent ideology, he no more shows an understanding of the real values of Israelis than he does of Americans. His “bond” does not preclude him from pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions. Peace should not depend on “having leverage with the Palestinians” who support terrorism. He is willing to put Israel at risk for the sake of a Palestinian State that would become another terrorist threat to Israel. And he deceives himself when expecting Israel - with its new borders - to defend itself by itself against any and all Arab States. 

He would likely - out of necessity - act to prevent Israel’s destruction; but in the meantime, he will also likely continue to show support for the Arab States, and that simply puts more pressure on Israel. His plan for peace will necessarily fail and he knows it; and the Palestinians know it, which is why they hope for a U.N. vote to sanction a Palestinian State.  

Obama is much to blame for Abbas taking this issue to the U.N. And after the political blunders, he still could have prevented it, as the U.S. did similarly in 1989 and forced the repeal of the 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution in 1991, by threatening to withdraw U.N. funding. In his U.N. speech, while he over-praised the U.N. for enabling peace in the Middle East, he betrayed our interests by his weakness regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. So he deserves the box he has put himself in: out of necessity, he will have to vote ‘no’ on a Palestinian State resolution; and that will further isolate him from the rest of the world. 

In summary: Obama can’t change the conditions for peace in favor of the terrorists and then expect peace or even to avoid the confrontations that follow. But he always does want to eat his cake and have it to! A friend of Israel? I don’t think so.

American Exceptionalism

“Exceptionalism” is the belief that something is exceptional in relation to all else of the same kind. Thus “American Exceptionalism” is the view that America is exceptional relative to the rest of the world. But exceptional in what respect? 

Our founding principles made us unique and exceptional. “Individual rights” extended morality into the social system and limited the power of the State; they became an individual’s protection against the force of the collective. “The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the U.S. was the subordination of society to moral law” (Ayn Rand). We became the first truly moral society. 

For the first time, man’s life, property, freedom and pursuit of happiness were his rights by moral principle and by his nature. He was treated as an end in himself, not as the means to the ends of others or society. Capitalism, individualism and more specifically the American industrialist were born. The result was unprecedented wealth creation with an increased standard of living for all, and an enhanced value for life manifested by unprecedented charitableness. 

Unfortunately, the lack of a complete philosophical foundation for capitalism has enabled the latter to be seriously compromised over time - e.g. by an altruist/collectivist ethics. And there is a high correlation between the level of adherence to capitalist principles and the level of our exceptionalism. 

Until recently, such compromise has resulted from a lack of understand and/or acceptance of our founding principles. But now we are dealing with our first truly anti-exceptional, explicitly anti-exceptionalism President. Obama has antipathy for what made this country great; he chooses to trade greatness for mediocrity. Why? 

His explicit statist ideology trumps all. His principles are anti-American. E.g. his domestic policies prevent economic recovery; his foreign policy of “leading from behind” is despicable and dangerous, as is his self-effacement when used to offset the image of American superiority.  

He duped the American public with his message of “hope and change”: he was merely “hoping” for us to ignore his long-term associations with, and acceptance of the beliefs of, the most radical statists in the country; and his “change” was always intended to mean a strong movement toward statism and to immorally redistribute wealth. He sacrifices truth for lies to protect his secrets - his ideology, racism, multiculturalism, crony-socialism and general ineptitude. To him, the decline of American values is simply a rebalancing of American and non-American values; American exceptionalism is considered immoral; individual initiative and responsibility are to be replaced with collective values.

I am tired of hearing about the failure of capitalism which no longer truly exist; about corporate greed when greed is primarily associated with statists; about a “social contract” of sacrifice when the only existing “contract” is to protect individual rights; and about class warfare, only existent under statism (e.g. Obama uses racism, sexism, wealth envy and economic/environmental myths to divide us). Get Obama out of the White House and we might have a chance to regain our exceptionalism.

Greed: What Is It Really?

Long before the liberal talking point “capitalism breeds greed” or “the rich are greedy”, “greed” has had real meaning: “an insatiable and immoderate desire for wealth beyond just limits” (Oxford dictionary). In essence, it is expecting the unearned and undeserved. That simply does not apply to the moral pursuit of wealth and earned profit.

Under Capitalism and free markets, individuals are incented to be productive and to profit from free exchange of goods and services with others. All gain value in the exchange and no greed need exist. Those who truly act greedily will not survive for long: either competition will force them to be more rational, or others who recognize their greed will lose trust and stop doing business with them; and government will appropriately punish those who violate others’ rights in the process.  

Liberals assume that the “greed of rich capitalists” justifies virtually any actions government wants to take against them. First, not only are true capitalists not greedy, but they have always been the most benevolent. Second, this assertion rests on the false assumptions that success and wealth are achieved by the wealthy sacrificing the poor to them and, therefore, the wealthy have a duty to serve the “greater good” through redistribution. Third, nothing can justify government actions against them except their initiation of force against others.

In all statist systems, government interferes with the private sector, and forces individuals and businesses to act against their own judgment and to sacrifice for the sake of the collective/society. This creates conflict among men and causes the real greed - greed of those who:

·       Use political power over others and necessarily violate their rights. E.g. public unions that want forced economic advantage over the private sector; environmentalists who are willing to destroy our economy for the sake of their irrational ends.

·       Participate in the redistribution of wealth: the recipients and government that forces it via taxation and special interests; and those who support the entitlement culture and can never take enough.

·       Demand a right to happiness (vs. only “the pursuit of”) and to the necessities required for a lifestyle (vs. only life).

·       Dictate an income threshold beyond which one has “made too much” and then tell him how much he should be allowed to keep. (Public sector excluded)

·       Pressure corporations to cooperate in exchange for government favors and to sacrifice their principles for their own protection. (Cronyism)

·       Add “pork” in legislation (greed for votes).

·       Pay no income taxes but demand more from those who do; not those who want to keep the income they have earned at no one else’s expense.

Government simply needs to leave individuals alone to produce wealth, stop envying and punishing the most productive among them, and accept the fact that it is true capitalism that provides the highest standard of living for all while minimizing the concern for greed.

Obama: “Ignorance, Stupidity or Connivance?”

Walter Williams wrote an interesting article titled “Ignorance, Stupidity or Connivance?”

He noted the absurdity of President Obama wanting to impose a luxury tax on corporate jets as a means to generate revenue to fight federal deficits. As a relevant example of cause and effect, he noted how thousands of jobs related to the yacht industry were lost after Congress imposed a similar yacht tax in 1990. Further, yacht business was significantly outsourced and U.S. revenue was lost vs. the $millions of falsely projected revenue. 

The government’s error is obvious and is essentially the same with every income redistribution effort: its “zero-elasticity vision”; i.e. the belief that price or tax changes do not affect purchasing behavior, especially of the rich. 

But I’m not so sure that Williams did not himself make an error of omission. His final assessment is that Obama "is not stupid enough to believe that a tax on corporate jets would be a revenue generator"; that he simply wants “to inspire envy and resentment against wealthy Americans as a tool in pursuit of his higher-tax agenda.”  

The latter is certainly true, albeit he can accomplish that goal without proposing such a tax. Most Americans, Republicans and Democrats, are unfortunately altruistic enough to accept some forced taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But Obama goes further: his statist ideology causes him to have a more over-reaching goal of broad income redistribution based on his own envy and resentment, multicultural views and the presumed right to usurp individual rights in any way he chooses. He essentially wants to discourage any attempt to gain wealth to become rich. And that hurts the current poor and middle class the most. 

That is where the public draws a line: their altruism does not make them blind to the fact that the economy cannot grow by punishing the most productive among them.

On that score, Obama is “stupid” - and anti-American; and that is what we have to fear.