Sunday, September 20, 2009

Intimidation vs. Liberty

I read a recent blog that describes what I can only classify as a pseudo hired gun to work in the St. Louis community with a primary mission to thwart the efforts of a sizable group of people who have become frustrated with the leviathan in D.C. These people have taken well disciplined steps to peacefully and effectively exercise their first amendment rights to petition their government and articulate their opposition. This "tea party" movement (which reportedly drew 1.5 million folks to D.C.) seems to be the equivalent of a barking dog guarding patrolling their owners property within a chain-link fence. The guard dogs refuse to stop barking until the intruder leaves the premises. American's are the well trained and obedient German Sheppard, and the progressive policy pushers are clearly the potential intruder who just do not understand why that damn dog won't shut up! People will never stop barking until the threat is contained and/or nullified. Most importantly, the guard dogs are extremely sharp and will not attack unless they are instructed to do so. These are not "wild" untrained dogs with rabies or looking for a human meal. They know their purpose and are extremely disciplined. They do fill a purpose to protect and serve Liberty.

In the article I mentioned above, it is clear that those in the progressive leadership cannot muster a cohesive verbal set of arguments to persuade the intended voters to support their policies. When given a choice between living a life rooted in liberty and the choice of someone else dictating they know the "one-size-fits-all" model for living ones life, the choice become simple and any further debate is futile. As a result, these progressives must then resort to tactics of physical and verbal intimidation with a potential intent to inflict physical harm on others to push their agenda. Have these people no integrity or reason to their actions? Are we so addicted to handouts that people cannot grasp the basic essence of rugged individualism? A political arm or party who assigns designated hitters to "deal with these 'tea partiers'" truly frightens me and I pray that the intended targets of force who do pose as opposition use the primary weapon of self defense, which is not a firearm. These weapons are cameras and recorders so that any type of oppressive stunt is repelled by utilizing youtube exihibits A-Z. No matter what happens in life, standing up for yourself and the principles that made this country great will never grow old. Liberty will never be a "handout" because it already belongs to us.

I believe I am in the majority when I say I value my liberty more than the price of gold. It is not something you can put a value on. No matter how many "freebies" someone throws into the communal public policy collection plate, I choose to have liberty for breakfast, lunch, and dinner 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

I hope you will join me.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

President on Health Care

After listening to President Obama speak for almost an hour on things he's said over and over and over for the past several months, I came away with the same questions in my head again that He failed to answer.

1) How do you increase the demand (insuring the uninsured), bring quality up, lower costs, maintain the current supply side (docs, nurses, hospitals, etc)? Don't these items all go in the opposite direction of decreasing costs?

2) How does our President expect to honestly pay for this program especially after the 10 year window the costs explode to close to $2T?

3) How can the President dismiss that there will be no rationing of care or decrease in quality to Medicare when it calls to cut some $600B funds from it? If this were simply fraud and abuse that they are going to remove, why isn't it being done today?

4) Why is it that the President cites "competition" and "choice" that consists of ONE that the gov't will control and regulate the benefits/costs? All of the new federal mandates will trump the state mandates if not add to the layer of limited options. If we're talking about creating choice and competition, why doesn't the president use the intended interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and open up new insurance markets between the states and have them drop ALL of their state mandates.

5) Why doesn't the President either all tax employer provided health benefits and/or give employees the same tax benefit employers currently enjoy? If we want to untie employer based insurance coverage, wouldn't this make sense?

6) Why hasn't anyone in Congress discussed the popularity and success of high deductible - health savings account style plans that millions of people love?

One last question...what gov't program has the gov't run well that is not currently insolvent?

I don't understand why health care reform even has to cost a dime....let alone $900B.

These are common sense solutions I think most people would understand.


Monday, September 7, 2009

Economics - Keynesianism

With all of the economic news of the past year or so dating back to the 2008 downturn, there seemed to be a huge deal of focus on this debate of what caused the downturn and what should be done to put us on the right path.

Having taken both Microeconomics and Macroeconomics in college, I had a pretty basic knowledge of the theory behind many elements of economics. Clearly, Macro-econ teaching is heavily tied to the theory of John Meynard Keynes. Basically, his theory relates to the fact that gov't should step in and stimulate spending when the private sector contracts or shrinks to keep employment sustained which will lead the economy to recovery. In a nutshell, if we drop money from a helicopter into the economy, it will get the economy going again.

I argue that Keynes theories are flawed in several ways:

1) All of the money needs to come from somewhere and it can't just magically be grown on the infinite money tree. Before sending money INTO the economy and to workers, corporations, etc... it first has to take money FROM the economy. Gov't doesn't boost nation income, it only redistributes it. The notion of "aggregate demand" make assumptions that our gov't can and should be some sort of "central planner". In free market made up of individuals making their own decisions on how to be productive, build wealth, spend money, and make their own decisions ... how can a central planning board possibly know better than the market what ample demand should be at an "aggregate" level? The answer is that the gov't cannot know better than the market. Does my neighbor do a better job telling me how to spend my household money than I do?

2) When gov't continues to spend money on a given spending item, subsidy, or public works program, the receiver of that money becomes addicted to it and continually relies on it in perpituity. Take cash for clunkers for example. The central planning keynesians putting the progam together estimated the "aggregate demand" for the progam would last 3 months with $1B of resources alotted for it. The "aggregate demand" projection was undoubtedly wrong and it only lasted one week. Now, instead of looking at the mistaken allocation of funding and mis-diagnosed reading of demand, the gov't called the program a "success" and allocated an additional $2B to last to the original end date in Oct/Nov. The extention only lasted 2 additional weeks. This program while it stimulated demand did not make the receivers of the program any wealthier or more productive other than having received a federally subsidized rebate for the their shiny lawn mower with 4 windows.

Bottom line, we cannot expect the central planners in Washington to know how to allocate resources or know what type of "aggregate demand" is needed. That is for the market to decide. The Keynesian model is flawed in so many ways, but mostly because it relies on government intervention to facilitate a planned economy. Let free markets ring!