Video: Milton Friedman On Uncommon Knowledge

Peter Robinson is an excellent interviewer.  He does not let himself and his own ego get in the way of asking good questions---an uncommon virtue for a talking head.

In this interview Milton Friedman responds to questions concerning the role of government in society.  Robinson begins by asking for a clarification of libertarianism.  Friedman asserts there are two stripes of libertarianism and decidedly sets himself down with the latter of the two described.

There is enough room for disagreement between the Rothbard types and the Friedman types without parting ways.  There is certainly enough freedom to reclaim and protect to keep the two camps united!

Video: First and Secondary Consequences of Taxes

"Economics, as we have now seen again and again, is a science of recognizing secondary consequences."~~~Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson

What would happen if the current income and estate tax rates stayed the same?  That is, what first and second consequences would ensue from not raising taxes?

Americans would do one of three things with their un-confiscated property.  Any of these would be a first consequence of not raising taxes:

1. Spend it
2. Save it
3. Invest it

And then there are the secondary consequences of not raising taxes:

1. If spent, un-confiscated property contributes to economic activity.   That's good in a recession
2. If saved, un-confiscated property adds to capital accumulation which makes more capital available for lending, thus increasing credit availability.   That's good in a recession.
3. If invested, un-confiscated property contributes to capital investment without which broad economic expansion cannot take place.  That's good in a recession.

If government decreases the amount of property it allows Americans to keep, all three of these opportunities expire. That's a consequence of raising taxes and that's not good in a recession.

Video: Ron Paul on the The Fed's Recent Actions

The recent disclosure of the Fed's activities surprised even Ron Paul.

So long as the Fed has fiat control of the money supply there will only be a negligibly free market.  Inflation and bubbles (that always bust!) are creatures of the Fed, not the free market.  How could inflation and bubbles possibly be the result of free market capitalism?   The Fed has kept the money supply inflating toward special interests and not the broad interests of a free market, hence all the inflation and bubbles. (Note the 7:57 mark)

Somehow, like Congress itself, every time a financial crises comes along the Fed gets to play the innocent bystander, as if it is not itself responsible.




fd

Video: Fat and Happy For a Reason

From Reason, more insight into the capitalist epiphanies of the Pilgrims. "Fat and happy" happens for a reason:

To Compliment the Thanksgiving Post

Love him, hate him, or whatever, here is Rush Limbaugh retelling the communal history of the Pilgrims. This compliments and illuminates the point of the Thanksgiving post.  Focus on William Bradford's reflections on the experiment on socialism.

Down With Upton

Reform is always a difficult task.  Just getting started is probably one of the more difficult aspects.  Such is the case when you can see old mistakes occurring on the side of the political aisle on which you lean for a chance of reform.

Repeat, chance of reform.  George W. Bush's Republican-dominated government made it abundantly clear we cannot place our hope in the Republican Party to reform itself and Washington; they became part of the profligate problem in need of reform.

The 2010 midterms convey some promise of a beginning of reform, renewal in constitutionally-limited government, and fiscal sanity.  This is a good start to a freer society. This all, of course, is predicated on a constant We Are Now Watching Every Move You Make nagging voter presence in politician's minds.  (The most effective check on their behavior is the fear of losing reelection---So leverage that fear!)

It'll be a short ride if we allow Republicans to begin the new Congress repeating any of their grave mistakes that set the table for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Case in point: I give you Representative Upton.  He's up for consideration as chairmanship of the House Commerce and Energy committee.  He is simply part of the problem.  Among other statist things, he co-authored the ban of regular light bulbs.  (Thanks Daddy Upton!  How could we individuals have possibly decided that matter as adult consumers?  GE appreciates the legislatively-crafted monopoly, we're sure.)

We know what vision for America and the world the progressive Left holds.  That's obvious enough by now.  Let's start concentrating on the people on the other side of the aisle who repeatedly ask us to rehire them on the basis of limited government, less spending, and cutting back the nanny state.  

Aristotle tells us the beginning is the majority of the whole.  Here's to a good beginning to reform.  Click: Down With Upton

Bill Whittle on Media Bias

Not much is more relevant, or In Real Time, than how the media is doing its job. Here is Bill Whittle on the subject:

Video: "Quantitative Easing Explained"

This says it all, particularly at the 0:25 and 2:09 marks:

To Compliment Mr. Hazlitt...(Video)

"The Most Persistent Economic Fallacy of All Time"

Video: Regulations Harm Those They Are Intended To Help

I saw this Reason video in a post on Hot Air.  In Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, he uses this very topic of payday lending to illustrate a repetitive mistake we make with our laws.

The mistake?  Well-intended laws that begin with broad, categorical judgements by elitist do-gooders and nanny staters (my words, not Sowell's) have very bad effects on the very people the elitists proclaim they are helping.  Reflexive stereotypes and emotionally-charged phrases like "predatory lending" and "exploitative interest rates" set the tone and parameters of regulations, precluding any consideration of basic economic common sense. 

First, the video:


Notice the inability to answer the question of whether or not the poor are better off if they never have the opportunity to get high-interest loans?  As Sowell would say, that question never gets asked in the hysteria that went into making the law, let alone answered.

As Sowell points out, after Oregon made it illegal to charge interest past 36 percent annual, 3/4 of payday loan business shut down.  Why?  36% annual works out to be $1.50 interest on a loan of $100 due in two weeks.  There is no way a business can sustain that rate of return, especially one dealing in high risk loans that many times do not get repaid.  Short term loan interest rates are rated for short periods of time, even days, so when scheduled out to one year they end up with astronomical rates of 800% or higher.  These are the kinds of numbers that get tossed around to whip up furry against businesses set up to actually provide a service for people down-and-out and in need of fast cash.

Poor people in Oregon need now have far fewer places to turn, thanks to the legislation that was intended to help them.

Honoring Veterans And Reflecting on Defense

It is appropriate and very good we set aside one day a year to honor our veterans.  We offer our somber gratitude for the fallen and living alike.  Veterans have every right to our homage and every reason to be proud of their service and sacrifice.  They served in good faith for their country.

Veterans Day also offers us an opportunity to think about the very reasons government sends millions of military personnel around the globe, and to reflect, today, on the appropriateness of what we are doing with tomorrow's veterans.  Veterans honorably serve their country in good faith.  Is the government of this country cautiously honoring that service and faith?

Accordingly, some things to consider:

• Is every employment of every American vital to our national defense? 

• Is every one of the 700+ military bases in 130+ countries around the globe indispensable in keeping us defended?

• Is every taxed and borrowed dollar of the $533 billion defense budget necessary for our defense, and prudently spent thereafter?

• Are our wars unquestionably vital to defending America, or the nebulous notion of "interests"? 

• Is everything we do around the globe in compliance with our constitution?  Does it evoke good will or ill will around the globe?

• Is every American life lost contribute to the actual defense of our lives and liberties?  Is so great a sacrifice, given in good faith to our country, appropriated by our government for anything but our real national defense?

James Madison:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honours, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people."

Video: Racism and Free Society Do Not Mix

I very much appreciate the virtue in keeping an even keel, moderate approach when it comes to spreading the ideas of liberty through persuasion.  I'm going to take a reprieve from that approach for a moment as this topic really lights me up.

Reactionaries love dogma.  Folks like this Wise guy especially love categorical, stereotypical, and incendiary dogma.  What better than conjuring up malevolent racial motives and incentives and impugning millions of politically engaged people when one has to explain the rejection of his own party? I gather from this sage's observations that all those tea baggers are really just upset at the browning of American society; they're all about doing a Clorox job on society, starting with making a whiter looking government.

Note that the highest social good seems to be the embrace of some nebulous percentage of a particular racial make up of society.  Once we socially rearrange the white out of society, or to a lesser degree agreeable to the elites and paternalists, all will be just and well.  In other words, we are supposed to view and treat people not as free and responsible individuals dignified simply by their humanity.  No, no, we are supposed to organize society into one big pure bred dog show, categorizing everyone into groups and assigning them value accordingly by identifying their humanity through the accident of birth, race, and gender.   But that's not racist or bigoted, of course, that's multiculturalism.

Oh.  And who would be the judges in this big dog show?  Elitist white leftists like this clown.  That's the real kicker.  Elitists who take it upon themselves to run society and our lives many times don't stop there; they take it upon themselves to shuffle us around according to the accident of our births and categorize society into racial groups.  But everyone else are the racists.

A free society focuses us on our respective humanity and all the equal rights and freedoms thereunto.  It also takes our focus away from sniveling elitist bigots like this Mr. Wise here. 

Mr. Wise.  What a misdirection that name is.

Rant mode off.

What Now?

"Whoever wants to see the world governed according to his own ideas must strive for dominion over men's minds.  It is impossible, in the long run, to subject men against their will to a regime that they reject."~~~Ludwig von Mises

Okay.  The polls are closed and (most of) the results are in.  For those interested in that whole freedom and Constitution idea, what now?

There are seemingly hundreds of Wednesday morning talking heads and pundits we can turn to for insight.  If we are patient enough to click around various news outlets, we most likely find that, similar to physics, in political punditry for every spin there is an equal and opposite spin.

I don't dare presume to be insightful enough to cut through the haze of our chattering class and get to the heart of matters.  That leaves me with one option: presume to be brazen enough to apply some simple logic, history, and common sense that only intellectuals would resist.  Or misapply.  Or simply be educated enough to not understand.

Here's what we know: 

• Tea Party backed candidates made significant inroads.  This is good.
• It is unreasonable to expect pro-freedom legislation.  That's not going to happen for a while.  This is good, though, because it forces us to continue to focus on the public education required in shifting public opinion.  Influence public opinion and eventually you influence policy.  That's how we got the welfare state; that's how we can revive liberty.
• In his victory speech, one of the most watched candidates, Marco Rubio, stressed his and others' victories were not a validation of the Republican party but a second chance to live up to their core principles.  This is good.
• Now that there are a lot of new politicians in D.C., there is an opportunity to immediately distrust them and make them, and others, fear losing reelection in two years if they become part of the problem.  This is a good opportunity and a vital responsibility. 

Here's what we don't know:

• How much the progressive Left will double down, in legislatures, courts, bureaucracies, and academia.  Recall the election of Scott Brown and how two months later health care was weaseled upon us.  This is bad if we fall back asleep at the wheel.
• How much the Republican establishment will or will not move toward the basic message of limited government, fiscal common sense, and making freedom the default setting.  Recall they have been a huge part of the problem. 

What now?  Now is the beginning.  Time to do a lot of homework and a lot of teaching.

A View From The Moral Highground

Via HotAir, the folks at Reason took to the Rally to Restore Sanity and fielded thoughts and responses from a few participants.

It is always tempting to think everyone else is immoderate and unreasonable, the only centered and reasonable worldview being your own.  All concomitant policies are, by default, the only ones worthy of consideration and those of "the other side" not worthy of consideration, let alone discussion.  This tendency seems to fuel the outlook of the Left.

As Joseph Schumpeter noted about disciples of "the prophet Marx" and their academic and intellectual adherents, dissent from and opposition to unproved socialist dogma is not just an error, it is a sin.  Opposition is not wrong intellectually; it is heresy and morally reprehesible.   (See first footnote in chapter one, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy)

Most telling are the responses between 2:33 and 4:14.

The Other Big Happening on November 2

 From Campaign For Liberty:
On the same day as the much-touted midterm election, the Fed is considering "additional securities purchases" and pumping more printed money into the economy, thus setting the stage for additional inflation.

The Fed exercises tremendous power over the lives, liberties, and economic well-being of every American.  And yet, it is an entity and law unto itself, uncontrolled by representative government, the rule of law, and the Constitution.  It exists as a mysterious hybrid of government and private entities. It has the power to print money out of thin air, "monetize the debt," inflate the money supply, and reduce the buying power of your savings.  It is not "federal" and it has no "reserves."  Its books are off the record and closed to public review, exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.   

Video: Be Harsh On Your Friends

Tea Party activist Dana Loesh says she will be more hard on Republicans who break their promises than on Democrats.  This makes sense, and she needs emulated.  Were Republicans not asleep at the wheel quite so much during the Bush II years, things would not be quite so bad as they are now.

No serious-minded critic of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama would think or say that our current fiscal mess started in January 2009.  It is now no surprise to the public what leftists and progressives in the Democrat Party envision for American society.  What the public needs to know (let's hope, wants to know) about the Republican party is that there are enough constitutionalists and classical liberals within it that we will not get a repeat of the spending and growth of government that occurred during the Republican-controlled Congress and White House of the 2000s.  This Republican profligacy laid the political groundwork for the current spend-a-thon and socialist power grabbing, and any shade of apologizing it away adds to the difficulty of restoring fiscal stability and constitutional government.

So be hard on Republicans--they need it.  We all need it.


adsfsdf

Meet Bill Whittle

Meet Bill Whittle from The Firewall.  He looks a bit like Jim Carey, talks like an understudy of Hayek.  Excellent!

Whittle presents the fundamentals of freedom-based conservatism, or what we more broadly call classical liberalism, in plain language and with historical perspective.   His presentations are well worth taking in and passing along.

"There's only one really progressive idea. And that is the idea of legally limiting the power of the government." 


Watch for his videos on Youtube.

"Of Football Helmets and Government Bailouts"

"This, of course, is a textbook example of what economists call “moral hazard.”  That’s a situation in which insuring against a bad outcome leads to more of that outcome precisely because the insured expects the consequences to be less severe than they would have been without the insurance." 

---From Steven Horwitz recent article, Of Football Helmets and Bailouts, appearing in The Freeman.

In a truly free, competitive capitalist environment, entrepreneurs and businesses operate within a profit and loss system.  When the risk of loss is artificially removed by government bailouts, business activity takes on unnecessarily risky behavior, behavior that leads to risk to the taxpayers and consumers.

Think of General Motors, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG.

The possibility of profit and loss provides the incentive to efficiently and ethically provide the masses with what they want and need.  When the possibility of loss is artificially removed the economic environment can no longer be called "capitalism" but one of "privatized profit and socialized risk."

Video: From Concerned to Scared

"People are never more sincere tan when they assume their own superiority." Thomas Sowell,
The Vision of The Anointed

 I'm going to guess the president came dangerously close to being very frank about what he really thinks of the voting public. This is not quite as direct as the bitter clingers off-the-cuff, but it is still telling:


Some interesting inferences:
1) Americans were "thinking clearly" and merely concerned citizens in 2008 when they swept the Mr. 
    Obama into office amid massive disapproval of Bush and Washington politics.

2) 2008 politics were not "tough" like they are now.  Were they "enlightened" then but darkened with
    public ignorance now?

3) When Americans push back against collectivism and assaults on their individual freedom, "facts and science [are] not...winning the day"?

Video: What Elitism Does to Freedom

This video by Bill Whittle is worthy of much time and consideration.  I first saw it posted at Hot Air and very much wanted to share here in In Real Time.

No matter what the time, country, or culture, there will always be a group of people who think they know best how to run you life than you do.  Worse still, they are bent on leveraging their elitism upon you through whatever system of government, all at the cost of individual freedom.

Whittle's observations dovetail wonderfully with Hayek's Road to Serfdom and Sowell's
The Vision of The Annointed.

Video: A Great Divide or An Awakening?

At 1:18 it is remarked how Americans disapprove of both political parties. Other polling shows that a majority of Americans think the government is too big and intrusive.

There are ideological divides in the country, as there are in societies free enough to allow divergent public discourse on what is good and just.  The divide that is widening in America is between Americans outside the Beltway grounded in the reality of unsustainable debt, and politicians inside the Beltway who create for themselves their own universe of make-believe economics and math.

Madison famously quipped that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary..." (Federalist 51).  If politicians exercised common sense, no Tea Party would be necessary.

"As Much Unemployment As We Pay For"

From BBC News: A trio of economists were awarded the 2010 Nobel prize for economics. 

Their specialty that garnered the world's most prestigious award?  "[H]ow unemployment, job vacancies and wages are affected by regulation and policy."

From the Academy itself: "One conclusion is that more generous unemployment benefits give rise to higher unemployment and longer search times."


It's official, or officially recognized by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, at least: Extending unemployment benefits extends unemployment. 

In his essay, Keynesian Myths, an essay in Making Economic Sense, Murray Rothbard gives us this to consider:

"Government interference, in the form of minimum wage laws and compulsory unionism, creates compulsory unemployment, while welfare payments and unemployment 'insurance' subsidize unemployment and make sure that it will be permanently high.  We can have as much unemployment as we pay for." [Emphasis added.]

What are the chances our Nobel laureate president will take note of The Academy's conclusion.



 

Video: Flannel Shirts, Fake Steel Workers, and Voters

The most telling portion of this video is the statement that, in the end just before an election, campaigns look to tap into emotion and get voters to vote against something rather than for something.

Advertisers will only try to sell you what they think you will buy.  In the next couple weeks it will be telling to see how much slide-of-hand and actual substantive campaign ads pop up.  This election cycle has a higher percentage of voters paying attention. 

It would be good to make politicians and their campaign managers realize we're looking for substance.

Videos: Notice a Difference?

What's the difference between government protests in Europe and in America?

In Europe, people take to the streets to protest cuts in government spending and reductions, real or perceived, in the entitlement cradle-to-crave nanny state. And all this in spite of the fiscal reality that such a government overreach has produced deficits their societies cannot sustain. The folks in the streets want more spending, more government, more of the cradle-to-grave nanny state.

Here's France:


And here are the Greeks:


Americans, on the contrary, have taken to the streets to protest government spending, the deficit, and to demand a reduction in the size and scope of government in their lives. They protest against big government, not for it. Americans, by and large, have a preference for individual freedom and an inherent suspicion of intertwining their individual fates with the caprice of government largess. It is the cultural effect of our unique history: it is how we are hard-wired as a people.

Here is the Tea Party:


That is quite a difference, one worth keeping in mind when discussing what is "mainstream" and what is "extreme" in American thinking.

Video: Big Business, Monopolies, and "Big Green" Environmentalism

"The myth is widespread and deeply rooted that big business and big government are rivals---that big business wants small government." Timothy Carney, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money

PJTV presents an excellent exposition on the relationship between the environmentalist movement, big business, and the regulatory agencies of the federal government. (I cannot embed the 11 minute video directly onto this post, so click here to link to it.)

The standard public perception about big business and big government is that the two are always opposed, locked into an adversarial relationship.  Not so.  As Timothy Carney (in his excellent book quoted above) points out, the history of big government is the history of big business and vice versa.  One complements the other as potential competitors are crowded out of or prevented entry into the market due to overly burdensome regulations and taxes.   Thus, lower prices, higher quality, and more choices for the consumer leave the market, too.

Classical economists have long pointed out that in a strictly free, competitive environment, it is nearly impossible to build and maintain a monopoly over competitors.  When the government is big enough and interventionist enough to squash out potential competitors, they will do so ostensibly for the public good.

Not all corporations are slimy monopolists colluding with the federal government.  The ones that do not deserve respect and our business. The ones that do are certainly not worthy of the name "capitalists" for capitalism implies competitive and open pursuit of wealth in an open and free market, not cornering markets through covert manipulation of government regulatory agencies.  

The broader point is that monopolies simply do not occur due to lack of regulation in a "free market capitalism"; they arise from and are solidified by excessive government intervention in the economy.  And companies that play the game properly deserve the title of monopolists. 

In context of this video, consider that former energy company Enron heavily lobbied government to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol--an international treaty rife with burdensome regulations on energy companies.

More recently and related to PJTV's Big Green topic, General Electric and numerous other corporations have spent millions lobbying Congress to pass the ominous Cap and Trade legislation.

Videos: Since You Brought It Up, Mr. Vice President

On Ponzi Schemes

First the vice president:


Now Rand Paul:


And Dr. Williams:

Tea Party Inflence On The GOP

                            

Click here for an excellent article by Jonah Goldberg.  It needs consideration. 

The primary season suggests the GOP "establishment" is quietly acknowledging the Tea Party's influence.  As per Goldberg's observation, the establishment has not mounted a public opposition to the Tea Party and has been encouraging some RINOs to exit the scene.

I might add that if there is one thing politicians are ever-obsessive of, it is their chances of being voted out of office.  This includes the primary cycle.  Real, common sense, pro-freedom reform has to therefore begin and maintain from grassroots level and at primary elections.

In Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, Mises argues that: "[g]overnment must be forced into adopting [classical] liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people; that they could voluntarily become [classically] liberal is not to be expected."

The history of recent years teach us it is not to be expected that the GOP will carry the banner of limited government and liberty.  But, this primary season the Tea Party and like-minded voters are forcing it to think otherwise.

Video: Worse Than Elitism

President Obama's latest "town hall" revealed a disturbing attitude toward the attendees and, thus, toward everyday Americans.  The word "elitism" seems insufficient to describe this attitude.

"There are a whole host of things that we've put in place that do make your life better."

Let's think about this:
"..a whole host of things..." = government legislation, spending, and regulation

"...we've..." = the people holding legislative and executive power that have acted

"...put in place..." = placed with foresight to determine some economic and social purpose--what classical liberal economists call central planning. 

"...to make your life better."  And there is the punchline.

Is the president of the U.S. in a postition to know what makes our individual and respective millions of lives good, let alone "better"? Who has the privilege of making that determination, us or him and his circle of advisers? And even if he could somehow ascend to this omniscient position, is it his place to make our lives better--as he sees it--through the coercive force of the federal government? 

How free is a society if its constitutionally elected president assumes this responsibility and then acts upon it?

Thomas Sowell’s excellent book The Vision of The Anointed explains why the “elites” in academia, government, and the media try again and again to implement bad social and economic policy in spite of the fact history teaches such policies have failed and will continue to fail.   In short, they are infatuated with an elevated and delusional sense of their own intelligence and see fixing the world and everyone in it to their liking as their mission in life.  Some samples:
 

“[T]here is, as the bottom line, a power agenda by which the vision of the anointed is to be imposed on the masses.”  

“ ‘Waste,’ ‘quality,’ and ‘real needs’ are terms blithely thrown around, as if some third party can define them for the other people.”  

Video: Who Knows Best?

"The efficient allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses is not just an abstract notion of economics.  It determines how well or how badly millions of people live." Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics

A $30 billion small business bill will soon be law.  President Obama claims that for new federal loans will help businesses "To grow and to hire..."

The premise here is that businesses need to hire additional personnel but cannot due to a lack of available lending in the private market.  This premise is seriously flawed. 

Businesses do not hire people because of tax cuts and lending intitiatives doled out by the federal government.  Businesses hire in order to meet current or expected demand for their goods and services; they hire when the market (us consumers) tells them more of what they make or provide (supply) is wanted for purchase (demand).

And there is no increased demand so long as there is uncertainty among both consumers and producers.  Coming clean on what will happen with taxes soon would go a long way to create more certainty in the market.


The president goes on to state there are "Many steps we have to take..." to continue an economic recovery.  If by "we" he means consumers and producers, and all the untold millions of people who, uncoordinated by government planners, spontaneously interact countless times a day to efficiently allocate resources to provide for a consumer economy of 300+ million people, he's right.  There are many steps that need to be taken.

If by "we" he means his government overseers, then there are equally "many steps" they should not be taking.  Unless, of course, he means stepping back out of our way.  Then please, do, take some steps.

Videos: The Tea Party and The Primaries. What "Purity Test"?

To date, the Tea Party movement has made its momentum felt in the primaries.  The Delaware Republican primary is bringing the issue of grass-roots, pro-freedom upward pressure on the GOP to a head.

Some view the primary as a "purity test" of the GOP:


How, exactly, does asking the GOP to stand on and by its own principles make activists "purists"?  

Others focus on the likelihood, or lack thereof, of the Republicans gaining seats in the Senate this November if the the Tea Party voice carries the ticket:


How does winning the general and continuing to be part of the problem help anything?  If we're going to drive off the cliff, doing so in a bipartisan fashion brings little comfort to those on the bus who see the cliff approaching.

The larger question remains: If hangers-on from the same old, myopically establishment, go-along-to-get-along, "moderates" win the primaries in order to win the general election, will that further the cause of freedom and bring government closer to being one with limited power in our lives, or will it keep us on the path to fiscal oblivion and government ubiquity upon which we are currently speeding?
Will implanting one more big-spending Republican into the visible government help the general public distinguish between the parties?

Put another way, does or does not the Democrat-lite, Rockefeller crowd in the GOP have any fingerprints on our current unsustainable spending and deficit?  Should they or should they not be kept in office?  Should they or should they not be put into office?   If so or if not, would the Oracles from on high please condescend to us unwashed rabble (who are irrational rubes who somehow are simultaneously sophisticated enough to be "purists") and enlighten us? 

I've been scouring the Federalist Papers for some applicable passage; there is something in there or some other source.  Suggestions are welcome. 

I suspect even the founders, with all the prudential insight into human nature, history, and politics could not even see this coming.

Video: Big Brother Knows Best

Ever get the feeling the federal government views the public like we're lost, unthinking sheep incapable of the responsibility to govern our own lives and desperately in need of being shepherded by their all-knowing, paternalistic regulatory agencies?

No?  You must not be a smoker:

Lost Federal Revenue?

Tax breaks do not "cost money." Bloated government programs cost money.

Tax cuts raises the question, "What will this do to the deficit?" and, "What will this cost the government?"

What does massive, unpredictable government programs cost in terms of "lost federal revenue"?  That statistic does not weigh so heavily on our minds.  We are counting dollars not-to-be confiscated but do not count dollars that have to be confiscated in the future.

That amounts to a lot of lost taxpayer revenue.

Really, Really Unconstitutional?

"The house of representatives... can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny." - Federalist 57

Oregon senator Wyden's (Democrat) recent move to exempt his home state from the cornerstone of Obamacare, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance of the federal government's liking, raises a curious question: How does exempting an entire state population of US citizens from the federal legislation that affects all other US citizens not residing in said state constitutional?

We know the mandate is a first.  Has this exemption move been done before?

Madison did his best to assuage the angst of those opposed to the new constitution by arguing House members would be subject to the same laws they had a hand in imposing on the rest of the country.  The same has always been for senators and the president. 

Who would have seen the possibility of a senator working to push through a law that forces Americans to purchase a good that that the government approves of---itself novel and wildly unconstitutional---then work to exempt the people of his home state from that federal dictate?

This could be something beyond unconstitutional.  All kinds of precedent is being set here: A federal mandate to buy something is passed on a strictly partisan basis, with its own lawmakers attempting to exempt their constituents from its legal reach, after passage.  Whatever term we or the courts can come up with for all this will have to new, too. "Unconstitutional" is just too insufficient to describe what is occurring here. 

Extra-Unconstitutional?  Double-Unconstitutional?  Everybody-Point-And-Laugh-Unconstitutional?

In deference to the president's unprecedented use of the word, unprecedented, how about Unprecedentedly-Unconstitutional.

That seems to fit.

Video: The Tea Party and The Federalist Papers

In Federalist 10, James Madison says one of the great virtues of a republic, as opposed to the workings of a pure democracy, is representation of the people's interests and views in government by their elected representatives.  Public opinion is thus "refined and enlarged" for broader and just national purposes and less likely to be used for narrow and destructive purposes.

The Tea Party represents a sustained and widespread opinion of We the People, an opinion decidedly in favor of returning the government back to the restraints of the Constitution that protect our freedom.  Its momentum and message has now had success in Republican primaries. 

Once such public opinion is carried into government after the general election, to whatever degree, the next step will be to "refine and enlarge" it into real policy, and curb the destructive short-sighted policies.

Go Joe Miller.  (And all the rest.)

Now, Down With Lead Fishing Sinkers! (Pun Not Intended)

From US News & World Report: " EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control Issue"

The following lines really jumped off the monitor:

"The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.

The EPA had planned to solicit public responses to the petition for two months, but this afternoon issued a statement rejecting a 100-page request from the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, and three other groups for a ban on lead bullets, shot, and fishing sinkers. The agency is still considering what to do about sinkers."

Rule by bureaucratic and judicial fiat is certainly inconsistent with a free society.  It is submitted there needs to be some level of discretionary power granted administrative agencies to carry out constitutionally-legitimate laws, but such discretionary powers need to be limited to the utmost if the rule of law, and not that of autocratically-bent bureaucrats, is to remain the keystone protection of freedom.  If laws are sufficiently vague to allow unelected bureaucrats the discretion and power to set policy and ban production and sale of goods, individuals are ruled by bureaucratic fiat, not free under the rule of law.

Here is F.A. Hayek in Planning and The Rule of Law, chapter 6 of The Road To Serfdom:

"If the law says that...a[n] authority may do what it pleases, anything that the...authority does is legal---but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law.  By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable."

But note that the EPA rejected the petition to ban lead-based ammunition shortly after the story posted on Drudge, even canceling its plans to solicit the public for its thoughts on the ban.  I'll go out on a limb of conjecture here and guess the agency was swamped with complaints from enough hunters, sportsmen, and people who do not skip from the First Amendment to the Third that it dropped the petition.

This surprising 180 in the insulated world of bureaucratic America reminds us that even unelected bureaucrats charged with implementing the laws of the people's representatives are affected by public opinion.  And we certainly know their elected bosses in the Oval Office and Capital Hill are, too.

Keep up the pressure, America.  If we keep pushing in the right direction we just might find the government respecting the Constitution and our God-given freedom more. 

But, alas, those poor adolescent fishermen are not as numerous, vocal, or bold as Second Amendment defenders, so they might soon find themselves without lead sinkers. 

Why Do We Pay Taxes, Then?

"It would be wonderful if we could pay no taxes.  Everyone."

Then let's start a discussion about all the reasons why we do pay taxes?

If you concede the government has a right to x% of your income--your property, that is--you concede it has a right to 100% of your income.  Everything in between is the degree of your property the government deems you are permitted to keep.

Video: Bringing Capital Off the Sidelines

"Government 'encouragement' to business is sometimes as much to be feared as government hostility." Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson

In this video clip Vice President Biden argues that renewable energy subsidies, a "down payment" is working, and that such subsidies will provide the platform for economic growth required for the future.

A curious statement jumped out at me: "...in the process we spurred businesses...to bring capital in off the sidelines."

Businesses do not invest because government programs, lending, or spending "spurs" them.  Stable markets, predictable taxation, and, above all, an increased  demand for their goods and services spur businesses to invest capital.

Contrariwise, capital remains "on the sidelines" when government spends too much and makes tax hikes more likely, makes markets unstable with a flurry of new regulations and legislation, and suppresses demand for their goods and services by encouraging consumers to consume less due to economic uncertainty.

Consumers are just not demanding wind and solar energy alternatives.  And businesses do not see an efficient means of making a profit providing wind and solar energy, so they are not putting their money unwisely at risk in renewable energy.

Hence the need to artificially prop up an industry with government subsidies, that is, tax payer funds.

When a business is "spurred" to invest using government subsidies, it is not investing.  Rather, it is taking advantage of a government manipulation of an otherwise free market.  So it really is no longer a business at that point; it is colluding with government to foster a monopolistic environment in which  profit made by siphoning from unwilling tax payers, not by satisfying the needs and wants of consumers voluntarily choosing to consume their products and services.