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.

Credit Card Regulations: Consumers Pay For It, Again (Video)

Consumers of credit cards (That's what we consumers do, consume products and services.  Credit cards companies offer a service) are now faced with higher interest rates.

(Click here for CBS News video---Sorry, I'm lately having problems embedding videos; have to use links for now.)

Why? Basic supply and demand in the market?  No.  Natural forces in the market resulting from a flux in consumer spending?  No.

At the 30 second mark:"The spike in rates have been caused by the new credit card regulations."

Banks now have to compensate for the inability to offset loss by assessing penalty fees on only those who actually deserve fees, delinquent customers.  Now everyone will have to pay higher interest rates.

Even Katie Courac admits this a way of forcing good customers to cover the risk of delinquent customers.

It happens every time: Government interferes in a market quick to demagogue some company, artificially influences the otherwise free mechanism of the market, drives up the costs of goods and services because inefficiencies and unintended consequences are introduced into transactions, and the consumer pays an unnecessarily high cost.

(Just about any economics book in Book Reports covers this repetitive policy.)

Because government decides we cannot read and comprehend the credit card contracts we all have to sign to get a card, and because too many of us are unwilling to accept the terms of the contract we signed and accept responsibility for our personal spending, all of us pay a higher costs.

This paternalism is not fitting for free and responsible people and is an indirect form of redistribution of wealth.  It is also one more way to force consumers to pay twice: once as consumers paying artificially high prices and twice as the taxpayers who unwilling fund the paternalistic, wrong-headed, and irresponsible policies of government.

But the credit card companies are the bad guys.

Destroying Jobs Is a Good Thing

Now that your interest is piqued, read Steven Horwitz' article in Freeman.  Here is a taste:

"Saving jobs means putting the engine of human creativity in neutral if not reverse.  The healthiest economies are those that consistently destroy jobs by inventing new and better ways to satisfy existing human wants with less and less labor, while freeing other labor to satisfy new and not-yet-dreamed-of wants."

Video: John J. Pitney on The Revival of The Freedom Movement and "Libertarianism"

I put libertarianism in quotations marks because there is no small amount of confusion about the term.  If I had to describe libertarianism, I'd call it a consistent adherence to the principles of freedom.

Pitney makes the point that libertarians are viewed as "quirky" simply because they are consistent to principle.

The vast growth of government in our lives during the Bush and Obama administrations has provoked a renewed interest in the Founding Era and the principles of freedom.  This renewed interest in freedom draws people to the libertarian perspective.



At the 3:33 mark: "The vast majority of voters aren't going to read The Road To Serfdom and
The Constitution of Liberty"

Perhaps. But we do!  (Click here to go to Book Reports)

Videos: Criticism of President Obama's Mosque Comments are Missing an Opportunity

The ongoing mosque controversy has conservatives focusing on President Obama's backtracking and "clarification" of remarks about the mosque.

As mealy-mouthed as these remarks are, and as deaf-toned to the 9-11 victims his positioning on the matter is, the commentary should focus on the president's articulation and defense of constitutional protections of fundamental freedoms.

How many times do we hear partisan progressives defend religious freedom, private property, and property rights?:


And during the "clarification" of his remarks, the president defended equal protection under the law and the rights that "date back to our founding:



Now that we've heard the president, the elected leader of our nation and leader of the Democrat Party, clearly articulate and defend these constitutionally protected freedoms and give a nod to the founding era that recognized the necessity of limiting the power of government to protect these rights, the task for critics and supporters of the president should be to remind him and his party of this unambiguous defense of freedom.

Now, the question becomes: Are these rights reserved solely for the exercise of religion and the building of mosques, or do they apply elsewhere?  Does private property include the fruits of our labor, income, and property rights include protection from confiscation of that property?

Speaking of equal protection under the law, does a progressive income tax and a 68,000 page and growing tax code applied unequally to the tax-paying public offend the president as much as an unequal protection of our religious freedoms?

Will the president make similar remarks in January when we are scheduled for a tax increase?

Will the most private of property, our physical well being, be protected from government interference under the new health care law, with myriad new bureaucracy and powers added to the government?   Is the private exercise of our conscience via religion more to be protected by limitations on the state than the private exercise of our health? 

Oh, that the president would clarify those 2,700+ pages and reassure us he is as concerned about all our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms as he is concerned about the exercise of religion in lower Manhattan.

Video: New AmEx Commercial

This new American Express commercial is very cool. The jazz version of reveille alone makes the commercial (pun not intended but worthwhile) worth a watch.

Enjoy the video first, then consider some things below:



The commercial illustrates the variety and indispensability of the commercial diversity that underpins our economy. In an country of 300 million plus consumers, the amount of voluntary cooperation and free exchange of individuals acting out of their own self-interest, making millions of decisions on a minute-by-minute basis is truly astounding. The commercial shows a handful of individuals applying their time and talents for specific purposes. Imagine how many individuals, actions, and decisions it requires to produce and distribute goods and services to 300 million consumers.

What is more astounding is to believe any sector of the economy can be planned for and directed by a government bureau. The impossibility of such a task is a lesson of history, one highlighted by F.A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

We would do well to remember such lessons, not shun them, particularly when we consider the health care needs of so many millions of individuals.

Video: Hayek on Socialism and The Myth of Central Planning

Why object to more and more of our lives and liberties being controlled by fewer and fewer elites? On the principle side of the question, that's an easy answer. On the practical side, the end result is a diminution of our standard of living and general wealth as a society. It just cannot work.

In this video, the late F.A. Hayek explains.  As in his classic work, The Road To Serfdom, he explains the fallacy of putting the power to plan and control entire economies that require infinite millions of minute-by-minute decisions by millions of people.  The practical impossibility of the matter is striking enough. 

Equally unsettling is the amount of power required for such planning.  Rule of law (the oldest protector of individual rights and liberties) must be disbanded as the amount of discretionary power required for such an endeavor cannot be prescribed by laws. 

Video: Japan and Inflation. Something to Consider

Something to Consider:

Video: The Principles of Ron and Rand Paul are Not New

This news video is a couple weeks old, but it presents a great lesson.

At 2:35 it is stated the Pauls' philosophy "was once considered far outside" the mainstream; now it is gaining headway through the Tea Party movement and a possible Rand Paul victory in the upcoming Kentucky senate election.

Such a statement is a good indicator of how much our culture, media, and government has strayed from, or abandoned outright in some corners, the basic constitutional principles upon which the country was founded.  We've grown so accustomed to an unconstitutional,  overreaching government that the mention of the first principles of freedom is viewed as radical and revolutionary.

These same principles---upheld and articulated by the Pauls---are nothing new or radical.  The Tea Party has gained so much momentum simply by becoming one big national refresher course on the basic principles of American freedom.  Freedom resonates with Americans, and we all need to keep returning to class to learn--and relearn--the first principles of freedom.

Video: Grassroots Effort Wins In Colorado

Ken Buck won the GOP primary in Colorado.  His campaign started at the grassroots level and built momentum from the ground up all the way through to the election.


His message, which is the message of the Tea Party movement, is simple: Enough with big government, return to limited constitutional principles, bring fiscal sanity to D.C., and reign the GOP back to its principles.


As James Madison remarked in The Federalist Papers, # 49:

“If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion."

Ultimately, our government rests on public sentiment.  The more we realize our common preference for freedom and the limitations on government power that are vital to protect that freedom, the sooner such sentiment will echo inside the insulated halls of Capital Hill.   


Buck has taken the first step in echoing the grassroots voice in the GOP.  The next step will be carrying that sentiment to the senate.

The Latest Bailout, A Double Shot of Wasteful Spending

Do politicians buy votes at the cost of future tax payers?  The current bailout suggests so much.

Congress will be voting on bailing out state governments.

State governments who overspent, recklessly did not plan for future economic downturns, and are entwined with special interest groups like public sector unions, are turning to the federal government for a bailout.

So we have state governments who are running deficits turning to the federal government that is running a 13 trillion dollar debt. 

In this Washington Times article, Joe Sestak (running for the Pennsylvanian senate seat this fall) released this statement about the bailout and his opponent:

"Congressman Toomey's out-of-touch philosophy was on display again yesterday when he publicly opposed deficit-neutral aid to states that would prevent massive layoffs and cuts to essential service." (Emphasis added.)

Essential services?  Is this not to imply there are non-essential services funded by tax payers?  Would Representative Sestak care to comment on the non-essential spending of state governments?  The federal government?

As Ludwig von Mises reminds us in Liberalism, The Classical Tradition (click here for Book Reports), big government anti-capitalism "is a policy of capital consumption.  It recommends that the present be more abundantly provided for at the expense of the future." Both the federal government and many state governments have overspent themselves at the cost of future tax payers, and now they are colluding to compound the mess.

Mises was the only economist to predict the Great Depression, but one must wonder if even he could have predicted the mess we're creating with bailouts.

Fiscal restraint and responsibility are issues most Americans can come together on.  The fairer the tax code can be made so that more people are sharing the tax burden, the more people will be opposed to irresponsible deficit spending.  Otherwise, we'll continue to be a nation of tax payers and tax consumers, one side being leveraged against the other by those spendthrift politicians.

Video: Health Care Mandate Pushback

The individual mandate included in the health care reform bill is perhaps the most offensive aspect of the new law. Missouri's much-talked about ballot rejecting the mandate by a 71 to 29% margin strongly suggests independents and a considerable portion of Democrat voters dislike the idea of the federal government forcing individuals into a economic transaction.

Candy Crowley remarks the vote "carries little practical meaning." In the sense of stopping the mandate, this is true. The larger practical meaning of the ballot, however, is in demonstrating a majority of Americans, in this case in Missouri, reject such a vast government assault on individual freedom.

This is a very good sign, that Americans are not apathetic to government overreach and that we are not clamoring for a cradle-to-grave nanny state on par with western Europe. Quite the opposite.

Now We Know What's In It

Remember Speaker Pelosi telling us how to find out what is in the 2,000+ page health care bill?:



Well, four months later, we have a clearer understanding.

Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the ranking House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee, had his staff comb through the 2,409 page health care law to find out how many devils are in the details. The process took four months.

There are a lot of devils.

To "organize" their finding they came up with the chart pictured above.

Kevin Hasset, of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a revealing piece on the health care law and Brady's findings. Most unsettling are these findings:

"Getting that massive enterprise up and running will be next to impossible. So Democrats streamlined the process by granting Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the authority to make judgments that can’t be challenged either administratively or through the courts.

This monarchical protection from challenges is extended as well to the development of new patient-care models under Obama’s controversial recess appointment, Donald Berwick, whom Republicans are calling the rationer-in-chief. Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, where he can experiment with ways to use administrative fiat to move our system toward the socialized medicine of Europe, which he has at times embraced."

Giving the health care market of 300+ million people over to the direction of a maze of bureaucrats will only drive up costs, reduce choice, and, of course, all but destroy your freedom to deal with the private affairs of your health.

Assigning such autocratic authority over the lives of all Americans to the executive branch and one of its cabinet positions is an outrageous abdication of constitutional duty by Congress. It marks a vast centralization of power into the hands of a few over the lives of millions.

(Say what you will about insurance companies. At least in that imperfect third party system you have the freedom to leave one company for another.)

So now we know what's in it, and it ain't more freedom.

Uh, Yeah.

Could free choice and competition in education possibly have worse results than this? Really, come on:

Misrepresentation

Inside this poll of most "conservative" and most "liberal" states you'll find this interesting observation:

"You'll notice that despite Democratic control of Congress and the presidency, there is generally a higher percentage of self-identified conservatives than self-identified liberals. Americans have been far less likely to identify as liberal than conservative going back to at least 1992, and the trend has been toward self-identified conservatism in recent years."

It seems as the American public is more outwardly desirous of being free from the paternalistic arms of big government, leadership in the parties leans or lunges in the other direction. Bush and a Republican Congress vastly expanded the scope of government in our lives and greatly increased the deficit, setting the stage for the current hyper power grab and government growth sponsored brought to you by the Democrats.

What's with this representational dislocation?

In Federalist #37, James Madison observed:

"The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands."

Contrary to establishment assumptions, politicians and their parties are dependent upon us; the constitutional circumstance is not the other way around. Accepting their view would make us We the Sheeple, not We the People. So long as politicians have to come grovelling for our votes and sell themselves, we hold the power.

The key, then, would be to continue to demand a better product, as the ongoing Tea Party movement is demanding.

Otherwise, we are not buying.

Waste in The Stimulus Bill Not the Biggest Problem

"There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending." ~~Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson 1946

GOP senators have released a report on waste in the Stimulus Bill. Several peculiar earmarks are highlighted and held up as wasteful government spending of tax dollars. Click here for the full story.

Fair and true enough, but opponents of the Stimulus Bill would do well to use the opportunity of press releases, cameras, and microphones to educate the public, and perchance themselves, on the basic economic fallacy that underscores the entire whopping $863 billion boondoggle.

That lesson? Whenever government spends x dollars on y projects for z purposes, those x dollars have been taken away from individuals, the chosen projects keep viable capital projects in the market from transpiring, and the purposes (earmarks) for spending occur for political, not economical, reasons.

Government has never created wealth. By definition, it can only confiscate and destroy wealth through taxation, borrowing, and inflation. Some taxation is necessary, obviously, but when public works projects occur they do so at the cost of activity in the free market; projects are funded by taking money out of the pockets of individuals and directing that money away from the free market.

If the government funds projects by borrowing, the debt is increased and the burden placed on taxpayers and the future of the free market. If government prints money for its projects, it is setting in motion a spike in inflation, and this occurs at the detriment of consumers and taxpayers.

The president boasts of "jobs saved." What about the numbers of jobs not created and jobs lost as a result of massive government spending? As Hazlitt reminds us,

"All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridges; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers." (Economics in One Lesson)

But faith in government spending persists.

Repealing A Section of the Health Care Law

Members of both parties are favoring the repeal of a section of the health care law passed earlier this year. Click to see full story.

The sheer size of the law does not bode well for freedom in our society; what else would 2,400+ pages of legislation do but vastly empower the growth and influence of government in our lives? As this story reveals, a law that ostensibly aims at improving health care shackles businesses with additional tax requirements.

As was touched on in an earlier Chalk Talk post, the size of the law also affords plenty of opportunity to illustrate the unworkable nature of so vast a growth in government, and illustrate that Americans are still averse to ceding control over our health care and society over to the central government.

"Lawmakers have heard the complaints." Keep "complaining," insisting on freedom first that is, and politicians fearing reelection will listen.