Saturday, November 13, 2010

Friday, November 12, 2010

Defund NPR


"We do apply for competitive grants from the likes of the Ford Foundation and the Knight Foundation. As a result, some money from CPB does come to us when we win grants. Depending on the year, it represents just 1 to 3 percent of our total budget" -- Vivian Schiller, National Public Radio CEO


The American Thinker has a well researched and thoughtful piece on the sources of NPR's funding: How Public Is NPR's Funding?

Along with a post at WorldNetDaily: NPR's actual tax funding much more than 1% lie National Public Radio hates to admit this whopping amount from citizens

I remember when this was news last month, at the time I just laughed and linked to this post by Gus Van Horn: Privatize NPR. As Van Horn's piece implies, the issue to me was not how much of NPR's funding comes from the government, but that any of it does. But now that it is looks like more than 20% of their funds is booty stolen from the tax payers, the following from NPR -- in response to the recent Debt Commission report recommending defunding NPR -- makes much more sense:

Federal funding has been a central component of public radio stations' ability to serve audiences across the country," adds NPR. "It's imperative for funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy survives and thrives well into the future.

The National Commission’s proposal to eliminate federal funding for public media would have a profound and detrimental impact on all Americans,” NPR said in response to the proposal.


More on Defunding NPR:

NPR, Corporation For Public Broadcasting Denounce Debt Commission's Recommendations

NPR fires back at debt commission proposal

Facebook group for Defunding NPR

Economic Literacy


Falling prices aren’t necessarily bearish for jobs, profits or growth
By Richard Salsman

Fears of “deflation” are widespread. By one account, “the scare word whispered around Washington these days is deflation, which means a falling price level and sometimes implies a stagnant if not collapsing economy.” The “scare word” also spooks the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is now planning to print US$600-billion in more paper money, even though it has already tripled its balance sheet since 2008, and even though currency-gold prices, the world’s most sensitive inflation indicators, have skyrocketed by 16% to 41% in the past year (depending on the currency), and by an average of 26%.

In the past, gold-price jumps of such magnitude, which always mean a depreciation in the real purchasing power of paper money, i.e., inflation, have been bearish for equities and growth.

The current anxiety over “deflation,” that is, an increase in money’s purchasing power, causing a declining price level, is ridiculous, for two reasons: (1) there’s no actual deflation to speak of (nor is it likely to occur in the coming few years, given prevailing public policies), and (2) even if some deflation were to take hold, it wouldn’t necessarily be bearish for equities, profits or economic growth.


Repeal No Child Left Behind


Over the past couple of weeks, I have been thinking more and more about ways to cut spending, ways to limit government, and ways to get the government out of our lives.

One of the ideas that seems like a great issue for the new congress to tackle, one that will garner support from both sides of the aisle is repealing No Child Left Behind.

Republican Congress? Repeal No Child Left Behind!

No Child Left Behind Fails to Close Achievement Gap

Bachmann Endorses Repealing No Child Left Behind, Parts of Medicare, and All Foreign Aid

Scientists and Engineers for Repeal of No Child Left Behind

I am not sure yet where this ranks in my list, but it most definitely is now on my list:

Defund/Repeal ObamaCare
Phase out Social Security
Phase out Medicaid
Repeal Sarbanes-Oaxley
End the Fed
Defund the U.N.
Defund Freddie and Fannie
Repeal No Child Left Behind
Phase out public education
Deregulate the financial industry
Get the government out of higher education
End the FCC

Obama Was Not New and Did Not Glow


Obama’s Glow Dims on Trip to Asia

Was there ever any reason to think he glowed?

“Part of the reason that sometimes it seems as if the United States is attracting some dissent is because we’re initiating ideas,” [Obama] said, “And some countries pushed back.”

Are we initiating ideas, Mr. President, or are we simply rehashing old ideas that other countries have already tried and have proven don't work?

QE2: History Lessons From Germany

Republicans Need to Fight for Principles, Not Compromise


Fed Up!
Our Fight to Save America from Washington

Mr. Perry criticizes the seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008, along with the Troubled Asset Relief Program signed into law in October 2008, as "the culmination of the statist's dream — the literal upending of a unique American way of doing things that had been defined by self-reliance, hard work, faith, a belief in private charity not government, and, perhaps most of all, a devotion to free markets."

As Mr. Perry puts it, "this big-government binge began under the administration of George W. Bush."

Mr. Perry also faults Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education initiative and the Republicans in Congress who voted for it: "This willingness to turn power over to Washington was driven in significant part by the desire to further expand federal faith-based initiatives and to provide for increased possibility of school choice. This is a perfect example of Republicans losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level."

Writes Mr. Perry, "the average Republican too often shows up to the fight seeking something 'less bad' than what the Democrat wants. That's not a fight, it's a concession." He goes on, "Washington Republicans haven't been willing to stand up and fight."


Extend Tax Cuts: It's Our Money!


Obama: Extend tax cuts for middle class, not the wealthy

How about extending the Bush era tax cuts for both the middle class and the wealthy, because it is is their money. Rich and poor alike, each individual earns their money.

I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high-income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their number-one priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit.

So there may be a whole host of ways to compromise around those issues. I'm not going to negotiate here in Seoul on those issues. But I've made very clear what my priorities are.


Why, dear-president, is it fiscally irresponsible for us to extend high-income tax cuts to the rich, but not irresponsible to extend tax cuts to the middle class, while simultaneously giving money to the poor?

How about if we cut both taxes and spending across the board. Reduce spending, cut social programs, stop bailing out private companies, get out of health care, and stop financing education.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Thoughts on the Debt Commission


Reposting with permission of the author.

Tony Donadio
Repeal the Bailout

I don't have any confidence in the debt commission, but a couple of points. First, the last thing we need right now is to further 'stimulate' home sales, which necessarily drives up prices artificially. In fact, it was the 'stimulation' of home sales through government policy (low interest rates from the Fed, the CRA, etc., and the lax lending policies they enabled) that helped get us into this mess in the first place.

Home prices need to be allowed to drop from their 'stimulated' highs back down to market level. Will that hurt folks who still own a home bought at inflated prices? Yes. But the current situation hurts those who don't -- and it especially hurts those who exercised the responsibility to refrain from buying in a bubble market. Is that what we want? To punish and victimize responsibility, and reward irresponsibility with what is in effect another bailout? I don't think so.

The mortgage deduction is another way in which irresponsible home ownership is "encouraged," at the expense of renters who have to pay higher taxes. It provides an incentive to buy "more house" than you can afford -- and to maintain substantial debt on it -- on the premise that the mortgage deduction will partly offset those costs. All of these things have contributed to the skyrocketing price of housing in the last several decades, to the point where it is becoming unaffordable for anyone who doesn't become irresponsibly leveraged.

Fixing this won't be easy, because history shows that our politicians simply can't be trusted to enact the spending cuts to make it work. For example, the proper way to eliminate the mortage deduction is to phase it out over time, and -lower- taxes on renters to be on par with homeowners -- not raise them on the latter. A lot more of the good old boy network in Washington (in both parties) will have to be replaced before that will become a possibility.

As for raising taxes on those who make more than $250k: they are already getting royally ripped off. According to 2008 statistics they make up 2% of households, earn 24% of income, and pay 43.6% of taxes. Also, they are often small businesses that would be -creating- jobs if they weren't facing such severe burdens. So I have no sympathy for the "class warfare rhetoric" that tries to make these folks assume an even more unfair burden than they already do.

"Veterans Day arouses three emotions in most Americans: solemnity, because it celebrates the veterans who have defended our great country; sadness, because so many have lost their lives in the process; and pride, because they have fought so well." -- Edwin Locke

Giving Real Meaning to Veterans Day: Fighting for Freedom is No Sacrifice

Veterans Day


"You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service--it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue." -Ayn Rand

(From her speech to the United States Military Academy at West Point on March 6, 1974.)

Here is another great excerpt form that speech:

To America's Armed Forces

Social Security: It Can't Be Fixed


Perry calls Social Security bankrupt 'Ponzi scheme'
By Josh Baugh

“I want people to be afraid not to talk about that Social Security is bankrupt and is a Ponzi scheme and if you've got a young 20-something-year-old, they know for a fact that they're not ever going to see that,” he said. “So let's fix it.”

As with repealing ObamaCare, I am utterly ecstatic about all of the topics entering the political conversation in America. And like with with socialized medicine, socialized retirement, doesn't work, can't work, and is morally unjust.

Values, like education, retirement savings, healthcare, shelter, food, transportation, water, and a host of others, are no longer worth pursuing, no longer moral goods for our life, if they are taken from others by force. The government cannot provide these things, except by theft.

The argument that social security is not immoral, unjust, or a benefit to me, because it gives me a guaranteed insurance, a guaranteed minimum, a "safety net" that I will have for my retirement is totally bogus. This argument is bogus, because I must choose my values in order for them to be values. If I see a larger house, a nicer car, my kids education, or my wife's surgery as more important, then as the earner of my money, I should get to choose how my money is spent.

If I make bad decision, and I run out of money at the end of my life that is on me. And I will have no recourse but to depend on the charity of others. But as an honest, independent man, I would much prefer to go without or depend on charity, then to force my countrymen to provide for my retirement.

Social Security is bankrupt, both financially and morally.

As I wrote above, I am happy that people like Governor Rick Perry are talking about things like Social Security being bankrupt and it being a ponzi scheme, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it can be or should be fixed. It can't be fixed. We can only steal more money from ourselves to stave off it's collapse. It should not be fixed, it should be phased out.

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Social Security is a Fraud


"Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.

"Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating not how to save Social Security but how to end it - how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures."

-Alex Epstein
Phase Out This Fraud We Call Social Security

Relative Size of US Military Spending, 1940--2003

Commission On Reducing the Federal Debt


I just finished reading Jackie Calmes "Panel Weighs Deep Cuts in Tax Breaks and Spending" on the NY Times website.

I am all for a panel to "reduce the federal debt" and their general recommendation "to make deep cuts in domestic and military spending starting in 2012, and an overhaul of the tax code".

The government's job is to protect the individual rights, liberty, and lives of its citizens. Thus, the last thing that should ever be cutting is the military budget. But cuts do need to be made, and potentially across the board, so for the moment I am happy to leave military cuts on the table. That said, let's look at what one of the recommendations of this new panel:

The plan would reduce Social Security benefits to most future retirees — low-income people would get a higher benefit — and it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes to ensure Social Security’s solvency for at least the next 75 years.


So again, there appears to be recognition that Social Security is bankrupt. However, the recognition as always is in the practical details, and not in its nature -- i.e., Social Security is a ponzi scheme. It is set up so the people paying are not the one's deriving benefit. And the only way that it can continue to exist is if new citizens (suckers) come along to pay into it. If at any point there are more funds going out then coming in, then the new suckers have to pay more, or the whole scheme collapses.

But just as it is financially bankrupt, Social Security is morally bankrupt. There is no argument for telling people that they are duty bound to work for their brother-men. From Communist China, Russia, Cuba, to Nazi Germany, Eastern Europe, and Venezuela, history has shown that socialism doesn't work, collectivism doesn't work, altruism doesn't work. They all fail because they refuse to recognize that man is not a social animal, but an independent entity that must survive by his own reasoning mind, and by his own effort.

I work by myself, I must motivate myself, get myself out of my own bed, and work for my own values. There is nothing in our nature that allows us to use other man's mind, reason, logic, energy, body, or spirit, and their is no collective mind, body, or spirit. In order to survive, I must choose to do the things necessary to survive. Since I am the one putting in the energy, it is only just, only moral, that I should be the only receiving the benefits and rewards.

Social Security, like socialized medicine, welfare, food stamps, public transportation, and public housing, fail because it dictates what things people should value, and gives people these things with little to no cost to the recipient. Things without cost are without value. Things without cost will be treated as if they have no value. But everything that men do, requires time, effort, and thought. So if the government is providing something for free, it means that some men somewhere are tolling away without reward.

From what I can gleam from the NY Times article, Obama's Panel recognizes none of this. There is of course talk of reducing Social Security benefits, but only on those people who have successfully earned a living. Please read again what the plan the panel is putting forth:

The plan would reduce Social Security benefits to most future retirees — low-income people would get a higher benefit — and it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes to ensure Social Security’s solvency for at least the next 75 years.


It suggests reducing benefits for future retirees, but not for low-income retirees. Low-income retirees are people who have not earned a living, but have lived off of the government dole, and thus by definition have taken more than they have produced, or to be more charitable to some, have produced little more than they have taken.

So the panel in all of its magnificence wants to save Social Security by removing that last rational argument for its existence: everybody who pays in, gets a check. If the panel has its way, only the people who did not save for their own retirement, did not work hard enough to make it out of poverty, and who have taken more from the government then they paid in will have a "right" to their checks. While the rest of us will have to go on paying, and in some cases paying more, for the added bonus of getting nothing in return.

What a bloody crock!

Social Security should be phased out. But it should be phased out in a way that is both practical and moral. I am 37, I know that Social Security is not going to be around by the time I retire. Same goes for most people in 20's and 30's. We are not planning for and we do not expect it. People who have already retired paid into Social Security for their entire lives. These are the two extremes.

Those who have retired, and are about to retire, cannot now be told that they will not receive a check. But on the other end, there are those of us, who want it to end and do not want to pay any more than is already being taken from us. We do not want to continue this, we do not want to rob our grandchildren to pay for our retirement.

So we say, phase it out. Every few years, raise the Social Security retirement age. Every person in their late 50's, and early 60's, knows they will need to work for a couple of extra years, and on and on. On the other end, allow those coming into the workforce now...those first time workers in their teens and early 20's to not pay.

There are numerous versions of this approach. But whatever approach we pick, we need to recognize the we are not our brothers keepers, and the rich and productive members of our society are not blank checks or slaves to do whatever the bureaucrats tell us to do.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Gold is the Standard


The Myth of Record-High Gold

Is this A joke? A case of putting the cart before the horse? A case of reversing cause and effect?

Seriously! Gold is the monetary standard. The value of gold is relatively stable. You measure the value of any currency by how much gold you can buy. It makes no sense to adjust the price of gold for inflation. The price of gold is how you measure inflation!

On Bernanke Alert Today


It has to be a really bad sign when I post on the Fed and Ben Bernanke three separate times in one day. The first two are: Bernanke Raises Significant Regulatory Unease and Fed Buys Treasury Bonds with New Money Equals Inflation Equals Tax Hike

This third post though is in response to John Tammy's piece over at RealClearMarkets:
Bernanke Ignores Basic Laws of Economics


For the most part, Tammy is dead on.

But what the average consumer knows that the fine tuners in Washington apparently don't is that in order to buy an iPad, consumers must produce something of similar value first, exchange it for dollars, then purchase the Apple product. And if they've not created value that is exchangeable for the iPad, they must find someone who has produced the iPad's cost in dollars, and who is willing to delay near-term consumption on the way to transferring their consumptive abilities to the eager buyer.

To make what's simple even simpler, all demand is the result of production first, and this has been the case for as long as man has roamed the earth. We produce so that we can consume.
...

Perhaps to give us a laugh, Bernanke notes that the Fed labors under a dual mandate imposed by Congress "to promote a high level of employment and low, stable inflation." Funnily enough, on Bernanke's watch the rate of unemployment has doubled, and while he would correctly point out that the dollar's exchange value is a Treasury thing, gold has nearly tripled versus the dollar during his tenure. It's as though he's begging to be relieved of his duties by noting his failures, but his peers and overseers in Washington are as clueless as he is.


What Tammy is leaving out, or missing entirely, is that Obama and thereby Bernanke does not see the job of the Fed as promoting a high level of employment and low, stable inflation. The Fed to Obama is a means to an end. That end? To redistribute wealth via the hidden/delayed taxation policy of inflation. Bernanke knows exactly what his job is, and he is doing it very well. In the next year alone he will have fleeced the American Public $600 Billion dollars, while allowing Obama to claim that he has not raised (and in some case even lowered) taxes.

The Mind of the Left: Still Incomprehensible


I am always amazed and befuddled by the way the Left sees the world, and by extension by how they see us. No matter how hard I try, I can never get myself to grasp it. This time though, I am not going to bother trying. For your enjoyment or confusion, I present you with the following.

Without comment, save for the title, this person put together a list of Tea Party slogans that he found "ridiculous".

The 50 Most Ridiculous Tea Party Slogans

Before I clicked on the link, I was expecting to see a list of actual racist, inflammatory, or nonsensical slogans pulled from tea parties across the country. Signs that indeed would be ridiculous, but that 99% of Tea Partiers would disavowal or laugh at as much if not more than most Leftists.

However, the list was a great list of slogans. And with few exceptions are slogans I support or at least understand, and would be proud to put on my own placard. Out of his list, here are my favorites:

Hitler Gave Good Speeches, Too
What Do You Expect From a Social Worker in the White House?
Obama's Priorities: $900 MILLION to Hamas - $50 THOUSAND to Italy
The New Deal: Franklin Roosevelt's Contribution to Socialism
Throw Barney Frank Under the Bus
$3 Billion to ACORN, $0 to Protect Our Border!
If Liberals Could Win an Election, Why Do They Need So Much Voter Fraud?
Socialism Is for the Elite - Ask the Slaves Who Live Under Communism & Islam
The Goal of Socialism is Communism
Socialism and Freedom Don't Mix
Capitalism Made America, Not Government
Those Capitalist Pigs Will Pay, Eh Comrade?
You Cannot Help The Poor By Destroying The Rich
Have You Ever Been Employed by a Poor Person?
The Only Fair Tax Is NO Tax!
Cap 'n' Trade? Lock 'n' Load!
U.S. Out Of U.N.
$11 Trillion - Now That's a Lot of Change!
Drill HERE, Drill NOW
Fund the Military - At Least They're Good At What They Do
Save The Secret Ballot - NO CARD CHECK
If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now, Wait Until It's Free
We Volunteer! Government Forces!
They Think We're Stupid

I also really liked "Obama: Undocumented Socialist". But ever since he signed ObamaCare into law, it is documented. Over 3,000 pages worth of documentation!

But of course, I think my recent attempt at slogan writing leaves all of these in the dust:

Don't Tax Virtue

NY Times Article:Obama Visits a Nation That Knew Him as Barry

“Then Barry said he would become president and order the soldier to guard him and the businessman to use his money to build him something" -- A childhood friend.

And he did.

Update:
For the record, I am not trying to blow this story out of proportion. And if Obama was a President like Regan who actively protected individual rights, my life, and my right to pursue happiness, than I would not begrudge him his "perks". And even if he was a do-nothing-weasel like Clinton it would not raise my ire.

However, given Obama's stock-in-trade seems to be picking some people's pockets in order to buy votes of some other people...all in the name of helping regular American folks...it annoys me a bit.

That said I would like to juxtapose the above quote from President Obama's childhood friend with this article on CNN's website:

Obama: Perks of the job ain't bad

Have your perks, I don't particularly care. But how about earning your perks by protecting American citizens. How about earning your perks by praising American business, innovation, self-reliance, and pride. How about earning your perks by letting individual Americans live their lives without government bureaucrats picking their pockets. How about earning your perks by stopping the FED from producing $600 billion dollar worth of counterfeit bills.

Bernanke Raises Significant Regulatory Unease


Jonathan Hoenig's As Market Cheers Fed Plan, More Trouble Looms is an absolute must read.

I’m not planning a class action lawsuit or citizen’s arrest of Ben Bernanke yet. But, in a manner of speaking, I do think he’s breaking the law. And the stock market is loving it.

If you walked down to the U.S. Mint and started burning greenbacks, the Secret Service could arrest you. But when the Federal Reserve destroys the value of our currency, it’s heralded as sound economic policy. Since that policy was announced last week, the dollar has dropped further and interest rates have already jumped. Am I na├»ve to fear this latest intervention doesn’t end well – even if the stock market enjoys a short-term boost?


Also be sure to check out Hoening's piece from last year on Inflation:

Uncle Sam's Heist: Deficit Spending and Inflation

ObamaCare


Milton Wolf has a brilliant review of America's first seven months on socialized medicine:

Obamacare - Seven Months In


I love the following passage. Utterly irrefutable.

Insurance does not work when the company is mandated by the government to cover a pre-existing condition. This is not unique to health insurance.

One cannot purchase fire insurance on their home after smoke is already coming out of a window. One cannot purchase auto insurance after wrecking their car. One cannot purchase disability income insurance after an accidental injury keeps them from working for a living. One cannot purchase life insurance after you are six feet under the dirt.

At least, that's not how it is supposed to work under normal conditions.

Insurance is something you purchase when you do not need it. Conversely, once you need it, you cannot -- and should not -- be able to obtain it.

Fed Buys Treasury Bonds with New Money Equals Inflation Equals Tax Hike


I'd love to see more backlash in this country.
Fed Global Backlash Grows

No matter how you slice it, the Fed buying $600 Billion in Treasury bonds is a $600 billion tax hike.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Stop Obama, Period


I rather enjoyed this piece by Michelle Malkin today:

All or nothing: Stop the Obama tax increases

Revenue Not the Problem, Spending Is


GOP on Message: Revenue Not the Problem, Spending Is

"We think we ought to go back to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels and freeze there -- there's been an 84 percent increase in domestic spending since this administration took office. We've got to roll back there. That will save $100 billion in the first year. How about a net hiring freeze on Capitol Hill?" he said.


I agree, this year we should go back two years to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels. That should be the job of this congress. That is practical, that is doable. But we should not "freeze there". In two years, we can work to win some more seats in Congress, and elect a new President. We can then start rolling back goverment to pre-Sarbanes-Oaxley, pre-Prescription-Drug-Plan levels.

This should be an on going rollback. Government has a single job, to protect our individual rights. It has been proven over and over that government cannot solve our problems. We need to limit government. We need a government that does one job, one job only, and does that job superbly.

I would like to see us continue the roll back to:

1)Pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels
2)Pre-Sarbanes-Oaxley, pre-Prescription-Drug-Plan levels
3)Pre-Fannie-Mae, pre-Freddie-Mac
4)Pre-Great-Society
5)Pre-Social-Security
6)Pre-Sherman-Antitrust-Act
7)Pre-Public Education

Republicans need a long term plan. Their election was not about a "two-year" rollback. It was about a principled stand against government intrusion in our lives. Be it F.D.R., L.B.J., Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush, or Obama, government planning, intervention, and redistribution does not work, cannot work.

I voted to stop Obama and the Left's plans to take over this country, and our lives. Now that election is past, it is time to start talking about, and planning to roll back government.

Defund ObamaCare, phase out Social Security, phase out Medicaid, repeal Sarbanes-Oaxley, end the Fed, defund the U.N., defund Freddie and Fannie. It is all on the table, and we need plans and strategies for shrinking our government. We need principles and motivation to defend our plans. And we need congressmen to stick by their guns. This election was not about compromising with Democrats, it was about stopping them. We won. It is now time for the Left to compromise with us.

Krugman: Great Depression Caused Not By Bad Policies, But Policy Delays


Doing It Again
-Paul Krugman

For those who agree with Krugman and think F.D.R. helped end the Great Depression, I highly recommend a couple of recent books:

New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America
Burton W., Jr. Folsom

In this shocking and groundbreaking new book, economic historian Burton W. Folsom exposes the idyllic legend of Franklin D. Roosevelt as a myth of epic proportions. With questionable moral character and a vendetta against the business elite, Roosevelt created New Deal programs marked by inconsistent planning, wasteful spending, and opportunity for political gain -- ultimately elevating public opinion of his administration but falling flat in achieving the economic revitalization that America so desperately needed from the Great Depression. Folsom takes a critical, revisionist look at Roosevelt's presidency, his economic policies, and his personal life.

Elected in 1932 on a buoyant tide of promises to balance the increasingly uncontrollable national budget and reduce the catastrophic unemployment rate, the charismatic thirty-second president not only neglected to pursue those goals, he made dramatic changes to federal programming that directly contradicted his campaign promises. Price fixing, court packing, regressive taxes, and patronism were all hidden inside the alphabet soup of his popular New Deal, putting a financial strain on the already suffering lower classes and discouraging the upper classes from taking business risks that potentially could have jostled national cash flow from dormancy. Many government programs that are widely used today have their seeds in the New Deal. Farm subsidies, minimum wage, and welfare, among others, all stifle economic growth -- encouraging decreased productivity and exacerbating unemployment.

Roosevelt's imperious approach to the presidency changed American politics forever, and as he manipulated public opinion, American citizens became unwitting accomplices to the stilted economic growth of the 1930s. More than sixty years after FDR died in office, we still struggle with the damaging repercussions of his legacy.


FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression
Jim Powell

The Great Depression and the New Deal. For generations, the collective American consciousness has believed that the former ruined the country and the latter saved it. Endless praise has been heaped upon President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for masterfully reining in the Depression’s destructive effects and propping up the
country on his New Deal platform. In fact, FDR has achieved mythical status in American history and is considered to be, along with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents of all time. But would the Great Depression have been so catastrophic had the New Deal never been implemented?

In FDR’s Folly, historian Jim Powell argues that it was in fact the New Deal itself, with its shortsighted programs, that deepened the Great Depression, swelled the federal government, and prevented the country from turning around quickly. You’ll discover in alarming detail how FDR’s federal programs hurt America more than helped it, with effects we still feel today, including:

• How Social Security actually increased unemployment
• How higher taxes undermined good businesses
• How new labor laws threw people out of work
• And much more

This groundbreaking book pulls back the shroud of awe and the cloak of time enveloping FDR to prove convincingly how flawed his economic policies actually were, despite his good intentions and the astounding intellect of his circle of advisers. In today’s turbulent domestic and global environment, eerily similar to that of the 1930s, it’s more important than ever before to uncover and understand the truth of our history, lest we be doomed to repeat it.

Battles Loom Over Tax Breaks, Spending Cuts

Newly empowered Republicans pushed Sunday to extend Bush-era tax levels for as long as possible and pledged significant cuts in spending, as President Barack Obama sought to maintain his footing in an escalating budget battle.


Wholeheartedly agree. First extend Bush-era tax levels, then submit legislation to lower spending to Bush levels, then submit legislation to lower both even lower.

Cut taxes, cut spending, cut taxes, cut spending, cut taxes, cut spending.

Smaller Government: Keep the Ideas Coming



There are so many great ideas for limiting our government, cutting spending, protecting our rights, and getting the government out of our way.

Be sure you tell your congressmen to listen!

How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Texans Discuss Dropping Medicad


Texas Considers Medicaid Withdrawal

I want to know whether our current Medicaid enrollees, and there certainly could be millions more by 2014, could be served more cost efficiently and see better outcomes in a state run program. -- Texas State Senator Jane Nelson


Senator Nelson, that should be, can people be better serviced by private insurance and private charities? And, should the government be in the business of stealing from Paul to pay Peter?

Just as it is wrong for ObamaCare to be forced on all Americans, it would be wrong for TexCare to be forced on the citizens of Texas. Reducing the size of socialized medicine does cure it of its immorality.

Bill Whittle's "What We Believe" Series


What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation


What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law


Be the Proudest Bunch of Curmudgeons to Ever Walk the Halls of Congress


G.O.P. Plans to Use Purse Strings to Fight Health Law

I take it as a good sign that the NY Times ran this article, which talks about the GOP plans to cut out the legs out from under ObamaCare.

There is nothing more important that the GOP needs to be doing then killing ObamaCare, and reducing government spending. Republicans, of the 112th need to be the biggest bunch of misers, curmudgeons, penny pinchers, and tightwads this country has ever seen.

This needs to be their motto. This congress needs to know only one word for the next two years: "No". No, Mr. President, you cannot spend one more dime. We have no more money. No, Mr. Obama you cannot print any more money. No, Mr. Obama, we are not raising taxes. No, Mr. Obama, we are not allowing the Fed to purchase any more government bonds. No, No, No!

You want to compromise, with us? Go ahead. We want to lower taxes 20%, let's compromise, we will agree to lower taxes just 10%. You want to compromise? Go ahead. We want to defund Freddie and Fannie Mae. For now, we are willing just to defund just Freddie. You want to compromise? Go ahead. We can do this for the next two years.

Is the Fed Is Destroying the Value of the U.S. Currency?


Yaron Brook and Terry Jones on PJTV:

Dollars to Donuts: Is the Fed Is Destroying the Value of the U.S. Currency?

Positive suggestons for growing the economy:

Repeal Sarbanes Oaxley, Cut Corporate Income Tax Rates, Cut Capital Gains Tax