The Current National Debt:

Posts tagged ‘Obama’

Crisis Management

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Rahm Emanuel, Nov 2008.

Like Machiavelli in “The Prince” (published in 1532) none of this is anything new, but it’s rare that someone actually says it out loud. Government creates, sustains, and basically exaggerates problems in order to implement their desired solution. i.e. To pass their particular political agenda.

Obama did it immediately after taking office, exploiting the economic crisis to pass his “recovery” plan to funnel tax dollars to his constituents. He did it again early this year to pass health care “reform”, and he’s attempting to do it today with the oil spill – using it to advance his carbon “cap and trade” and “alternative energy” agenda.

BTW – This isn’t just me bashing Obama, ALL governments do it. Obama isn’t even particularly good at it. GWB was the master.

Bush II was adept at exploiting the crisis du jour. Is there any doubt that Bush took advantage of 9/11 in order to finish off the Hussein/Bush Family Feud once and for all? There was never the slightest connection between Saddam and 9/11, but Bush – along with his lackey Colin Powell – did their best to scare the crap out of everyone to make them think Saddam was Hitler II.

How about the way Bush used 9/11 to implement his version of security – which is way closer to Hitler’s Gestapo and SS than Saddam ever dreamed of doing – called the USA PATRIOT Act?

I swear I’m not making this up – it’s official name is the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001″. Everyone knows it as the Patriot Act, and it’s has done more to strip fundamental rights rights away from Americans than anything that Bin Laden or Saddam could ever dream of doing.

Basically every single article of it that’s made it to the Supreme Court has been ruled unconstitutional. Eventually, the whole thing will be thrown out, but that takes years of court battles – and someone with the balls (and money) to challenge the law – instead of meekly doing whatever the Gestapo tell them what they are allowed to do.

Bush also used 9/11 to implement the gigantic, overblown, over-funded, mismanaged, best-example-of-big-government-gone-awry-since-LBJ’s-Great-Society, stupidity-enshrined-in-law-monstrosity-that-we-call-the “Department of Homeland Security”.

I mean really, WTF are we all doing standing in lines at airports so federal agents can be voyeurs to enable them to find and take away those fingernail files and 3.6oz tubes of toothpaste that we’re going to use to take over the plane and crash it into the Podunk State Fair?

And then there’s the $700 billion bailout of the banks (aka TARP) that Bush pushed through as he was leaving office. I could write hundreds of pages about the stupidity and ultimate uselessness of that alone.

And please don’t forget one of the most obnoxious and intrusive laws ever imposed on Americans – the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. SOX was passed in response to the Enron fiasco. AFTER Enron had already collapsed. The free market, on it’s own, without government doing a damn thing, had already corrected the problems with Arthur Andersen and other accounting firms cooking the books and basically making up numbers. The bad companies disappeared and their stockholders lost money – precisely what should have happened. No additional regulation required.

SOX reporting requirements have sucked hundreds of billions – if not trillions – from companies over the past decade. How many millions of productive workers could have – would have – been employed with that money instead?

I gotta give credit where credit is due though – Bush II (or King George II, whichever moniker you prefer) was even able to take something which was a “good thing” and turn it into a crisis. He inherited surpluses (they were fake, but no need to get into that here) “as far as the eye can see” into the future, and turned them into the largest deficits ever known in the history of man.

He did this by convincing people that the “surpluses” were simply the government taking away their hard earned wealth and squandering it. Seriously. Look up his acceptance speech when he won the nomination. He said “Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend. But they’ve got it backwards. The surplus is not the government’s money; the surplus is the people’s money.”

In the first place, there was no surplus, but more importantly, IF there had been a surplus, it should have been used to pay down the existing debt. Bush seriously thought he could cut taxes AND increase spending AND pay down the debt AND everything would be just fine. He was – and is – a world class moron.

Instead of paying down the (approximately) $5.6 trillion in debt he inherited, Bush II fricking doubled it during his term. In just 8 years, Bush II increased our debt as much as ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED!

This is so hard to comprehend that I’ll try saying it another way. During the first 212 years (from 1789 until 2001) that the US had been in existence, we accumulated about $5.6 trillion in debt. Total. The first 42 US Presidents combined spent a total of $5.6 trillion more than they collected via taxes. Got it?

Now Bush II becomes President. Starting with $5.6 trillion in debt. With his budget for 2009, he left us over $11 trillion in debt. I can spend money, but DAMN, that boy was good! Even a drunken sailor has to stop when he runs out of money. Bush didn’t.

Can you tell that I think Bush II was (and still is) the Worst. President. Ever? He even beats Carter who previously held that title in my opinion. (Hmmm… I may have to rethink this. Carter couldn’t even successfully exploit the numerous crisis he had (oil embargo, Iranian Hostage, giant swamp rabbit, etc), so it’s conceivable that he was even dumber than Bush…. I need to ponder this at length sometime.)

Anyway, Obama isn’t doing anything that previous Presidents haven’t done as well, but that doesn’t mean I like it. Just because your predecessor sucked, and you happen to (in the immortal words of a team member) “suck less” doesn’t mean I like it. It doesn’t mean I think you’re doing a good job either.

Just because I think Obama “sucks less” than Bush II doesn’t mean I agree with his policies. As with Bush II, I can name a dozen areas where I disagree with Obama. And Obama obviously learned from Bush – he isn’t going to to let a crisis go to waste. Betcha thought I’d never get back to that point, but I did. :-)

So he’s going to use the Gulf Oil Spill crisis to impose restrictions on drilling, and oil companies, and to impose new taxes to “punish” those responsible, and whatever else he thinks he can get away with to advance his agenda.

While I totally support “alternative energy” I do not agree with his agenda. I am a HUGE proponent of wind and solar power, and I would cover my south facing roof with solar panels and put a wind turbine in my backyard tomorrow morning – IF it made economic sense to do so. It does not.

The ONLY way it could possibly make economic sense (to individuals like me) at this point in time would be to tax the hell out of traditional power sources. Which is stupid. If I actually need to explain WHY that would be stupid, then you are too stupid to understand it.

Seriously. Read a Econ 101 textbook (or better yet, read Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson” (http://jim.com/econ/chap01p1.html) particularly “The Lesson Applied”) then ask me to explain it if you still don’t get it.

When alternative energy sources become economically viable – either by the price of them dropping or by the price of traditional sources rising via free market forces – I won’t be the only one buying and using them. Everyone will want a “cheap energy thingy” in/on their house. And they’ll have one.

Just as petroleum based kerosene displaced whale oil as fuel for lights, and gasoline beat out electric and steam powered automobiles in the early 1900’s, when “alternative” energy costs drop below the cost of fossil fuels, everyone will use it. No government interference, regulation, increased taxes, “cap and trade”, or whatever else they what to call it is required to make that happen.

Leave the market alone (no subsidies for anyone – oil companies or ethanol producers or corn growers or solar panel factories or wind turbine generator manufacturer’s or biomass methane producers or hydro wave action scheme of the day, etc.) and everyone will do what makes cents (I know it’s a bad pun, but I’m bored) for them to do.

That’s what a free market does best. No government policy can change that. And crisis management – or management by crisis – will have no lasting effect. Unfortunately, we’re not doing that.

I read somewhere that “you can sway 1000 people by emotion faster than you can convince one with logic” – or words to that effect. The problem is that those thousand people can be “swayed” back to the opposite viewpoint the next day by a new demagogue. The one who you convinced with logic will stay convinced.

Hopefully, I’ve given enough examples, and used enough logic to convince the 2 people who actually read through this rant that they shouldn’t blindly agree with the proposed solution(s) to the crisis du jour.

Please think about it. Think it through. Think about the implications of the new policy. Not simply what it means today, or what feels good, or makes you feel better because you (or your proxy the government) are sticking it to “the man”, but what the new policy will actually accomplish.

There, I feel better.

Sphere: Related Content

Politics, Oil, Obama

Just wanted to point out a few facts that aren’t getting much coverage.  I saw these in a Yahoo news story earlier today that I had bookmarked, but when I went back to it, Yahoo had “updated” the story and removed the stuff I wanted to talk about.  But I found the stuff in a story from WGN.

A few quotes from the article:  Today, he stopped at a beach where absorbent booms and sandbags have been laid for miles to try to keep more oil from washing ashore. Hmmm….  Where did those “miles” of “absorbent booms and sandbags” to keep the oil off the shore come from?  You think the Federal government did it?  Or BP?  Be honest now….  :-)

“It’s a dog and pony show. What can he really do?” said Billy Ward, 53, who comes to his beach house here every weekend. It’s always a dog and pony show when any official visits any disaster area.  They can’t do anything, and they distract from the work that the people (who can do something) are doing.  But it makes for nice photo ops for the politician.

To be fair, the politician is in a no win situation.  He’s accused of being aloof and non-caring if he doesn’t show up, and people like me (and Billy Ward) point out the hypocrisy involved if he does show up.

No oil could be seen in the water during Obama’s helicopter ride from New Orleans, over Louisiana bayous, to Port Fourchon down the coast from Grand Isle. I think that bears repeating – Obama took a helicopter ride from New Orleans, down the coast in order to see the damage.  He found none.  Zero.  “No oil could be seen”.

Go ahead, look up Port Fourchon LA on a map.  Look up Grand Isle LA.  Look at the amount of coastline and water that Obama flew over attempting to see oil washed up and polluting the beaches.  Damn.  Couldn’t find any.  (Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t as big of a disaster as some media outlets are making it out to be.)

That changed when he arrived at Fourchon Beach, however. A shirt-sleeved Obama walked to the water’s edge, stooping as Adm. Thad Allen of the Coast Guard explained what he was seeing.

The beach, sealed off with crime-scene-style yellow tape, is one of the few sandy stretches on Louisiana’s coast, where most is marshland. Obama called reporters traveling with him to the water’s edge and picked up a few pebble-sized tar balls. No other oil was visible. Again, I think it’s important to point this out -mainly because it seems to be hard to find oil on the LA coast.  I could be wrong about this, but assuming Obama was looking for a photo op and this was the best he could do, I think we’re in pretty damn good shape so far.

It’s also important to note that “tar balls” wash up on beaches all the time from oil that oozes naturally from the floor of the gulf.  When they found some on FL beaches last week, everybody freaked.  But when it turned out that the tar balls couldn’t be blamed on BP the frenzy quickly faded away and it stopped being news.  Morons.  A tar ball is a tar ball.  Why would one be ok but another be a disaster?

“These are the tarballs that they’re talking about,” he said. “You can actually send out teams to pick up as they wash on shore.”
So send em out!  WTF are you doing?  If it’s that easy to clean up, station people on the beaches and clean it up.

More from the story: Early in the morning in advance of the president’s arrival, hundreds of workers clad in white jump suits and rubber gloves hit the beaches to dig oily debris from the sand and haul it off. Workers refused to say who hired them, telling a reporter only they were told to keep quiet or lose their jobs. Sounds like someone is cleaning up the oil.  Maybe BP?  It also sounds like where Obama was going to visit was a poorly kept secret, and that perhaps someone decided to clean it before he got there to keep from being embarrassed.  But if a beach can be cleaned in one morning, there obviously wasn’t much there to begin with.

I do not want to diminish the impact of this spill.  It’s obviously not a good thing, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.  On the other hand, I’ve seen blogs and comments on news stories where they basically say that BP could have stopped this a long time ago, but they didn’t want to have to seal the well because they wanted to be able to get that oil.  That’s simply BS.   If they could have shut down the well at once they would have done so.   Does anyone honestly think BP wants this publicity?  Maybe leftist conspiracy nuts would go there, but as a Libertarian nut, I won’t.  :-)

gk

Sphere: Related Content

Frank Rich is whack

Reading a NY Times story from Frank Rich titled After the Massachusetts Massacre in which Mr. Rich claims It was not a referendum on Barack Obama and  It was not a rejection of universal health care.   Umm, what rock has Mr. Rich been hiding under?

For days heading into the election, we heard over and over how Brown was campaigning as the 41st vote against health care and Coakley was campaigning as the 60th vote for health care.  I even heard Brown has a nickname “41″ because he claimed to be the 41st vote against everything Obama wanted.

I’m not sure what fantasy world Mr. Rich is living in, but it’s hard to trust the analysis and opinions of anyone who is able to make up their own view of reality so easily.

gk

Sphere: Related Content

Party like it’s 1994 – Part II

I mentioned this a few weeks ago, but it seems to be getting more and more likely that the Dems may be in for a replay of 1994.

In general, Americans don’t like politicians who go to extremes, and when any one party is in control, they ALWAYS go to extremes.  Clinton tried pushing through health care and it was a disaster for the Dems.  Bush got it in 2002 and pushed through the Iraq fiasco – which led to the current Dem majority.   Now it appears that Obama is heading down the same path.

You know things are bad for Democrats when the NY Times opinion page has 3 stories – and they are all complaining about Democrats.  Check them out.

The Lady and the Arlen – Gail Collins

They Still Don’t Get It – Bob Herbert

Mobs Rule – Charles Blow

gk

Sphere: Related Content

Party like it’s 1994?

Ran across this story in the NY Times tonight suggesting that the Dems  are going to have a hard time “defending their large Congressional majorities”  in the 2010 elections.  Interesting….  That’s the first I’ve heard one that subject, and it got me to thinking about the over reaching in Clinton’s first term, which led to the Contract with America and the Republican domination of congress for the next decade.

Could health care (and the resulting loss of individual and states rights) prove to be Obama’s defining moment as it was with Hillary care?  Stay tuned….

gk

Sphere: Related Content

Yo, ‘Bama, will you be my homeboy?

This is what it’s come down to…  An 11 year old asking President Obama “Would you like to become my homeboy?”

That’s what USA Today says in their article about it.

WEAVER: When I interviewed Vice President Joe Biden, he became my homeboy. Would you like to become my homeboy?

OBAMA: Absolutely, thank you man. Great job.

You can watch the “interview” on YouTube here.   Here’s a story from the Miami Herald about it.  And a couple more quotes.

Damon, 11, sat with the nation’s chief executive in the White House Diplomatic Room, asking 11 questions mostly concerning education, according to Brian Zimmerman, Damon’s teacher.

“It was a great experience,” Zimmerman said. “Damon even got to meet the dog.” (He met Hillary too?)  :-)

He also asked whether Obama would play basketball against NBA star Dwyane Wade, who promised him a match if he got the interview: “He’s not sure if he’d let you score,” the youngster said.

gk

Sphere: Related Content

New bumper sticker

Here’s a bumper sticker someone needs to make – “Honk if I bought your clunker”, or “Honk if I bought your new car”.

Just like the “Honk if I’m paying your mortgage” stickers last year, cash for clunkers is simply a way for politicians to take money from one group and give it to another who hasn’t earned it.  It’s a redistribution of wealth, just like the bread and circuses of Rome.  Keep the plebes happy so they continue to vote for the incumbent – and so they don’t revolt.

When are Americans going to say “Enough”?  I don’t think enough of us will ever get to that point, and I think we can look forward to a fairly rapid decline of this country.

gk

Sphere: Related Content

Cash for Congress – err – Clunkers

Cash for clunkers seems to be all the rage this week.  Hundreds of news stories and blog posts are telling everyone how successful it is, how it RAN OUT OF MONEY IN ONE WEEK when it was supposed to last until November, and how this will boost the economy.

Bullshit.

Here’s an excerpt from the Daily Reckoning.com explaining why it’s bullshit.

And as Bill has been pointing out, this is just another example of the government promoting the idea that the future doesn’t matter – just spend for today. He wrote in Friday’s essay: “Instead of letting the consumer buy a new car when he is ready, the feds give them money to buy now. So, he buys in 2009 and not in 2010. What good is accomplished? It is as if they didn’t expect 2010 to ever arrive…”

The Wall Street Journal backs us up here: “The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.”

This is what’s known as the “broken window fallacy” that I posted about in February 2008.  It’s a classic story and you can read all about it on the link, but here’s the main part as told by Henry Hazlitt’s classic “Economics in One Lesson” (Which I urge you to read.) It’s copied from my earlier post -which was copied from Lew Rockwell’s post on Mises.org.

A kid throws a rock at a window and breaks it, and everyone standing around regrets the unfortunate state of affairs. But then up walks a man who purports to be wise and all knowing. He points out that this is not a bad thing after all. The man fixing the window will get money for doing so. This will then be spent on a new suit, and the tailor too will get money. The tailor will spend money on other items, and the circle of rising prosperity will expand without end.

What’s wrong with this scenario? As Bastiat put it, “It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.”

You can see the absurdity of the position of the wise commentator when you take it to absurd extremes. If the broken window really produces wealth, why not break all windows up and down the whole city block? Indeed, why not break doors and walls? Why not tear down all houses so that they can be rebuilt? Why not bomb whole cities so construction firms can get busy rebuilding?

It is not a good thing to destroy wealth. Bastiat puts it this way: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed.”

It sounds like an unexceptional claim. But herein rests the core case against everything the government does. Perhaps, then, we can see why the allegory is not better known. If we took it seriously, we would dismantle the whole apparatus of American economic intervention.

If you are with me to this point, perhaps you have a hard time believing that anyone really believes that wealth destruction is actually a good thing. Let me try to show that the fallacy is as pervasive as ever.

After every natural disaster, we at the Mises Institute start what we call the “Broken Window Watch.”

After hurricane Katrina, the Labor Secretary said, “[W]hat will happen — and I have seen this in previous catastrophes and hurricanes — there is a bright spot in that new jobs do get created.”

And The Economist said, “While big hurricanes like Katrina destroy wealth, they often have a net positive effect on GDP growth, as the temporary downturn immediately after the storm is more than made up for by the burst of economic activity that takes place when the rebuilding begins.”

And the New York Times said, “Economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding.”

That’s what we’re doing with Cash for Clunkers.  We’re diverting capital from where it would naturally go into a program to destroy valuable assets and replace them.

Why not apply the concept elsewhere? How about cash for houses? Cash for liquor? Cash for newspapers? Cash for trips to Europe?

Yes, there will be a temporary boost to the economy, but it comes at the expense of next year, and the next year, and the next year.  WHO IS PAYING FOR IT?  We all are, and all we’re actually doing is postponing the day of reckoning.  You cannot borrow your way out of debt, and that’s what this program is trying to do.

gk

Sphere: Related Content

We have to spend money to keep from going broke

I don’t know how I missed this last week, but according to the Boston Herald here, Joe Biden actually said this.

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation.”

“People, when I say that, look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?” he said. “The answer is yes.”

We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt” should become as famous as the “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” quote from the Vietnam War.  It’s “Ben Tre logic.“  And it’s just as stupid.

There’s no way to say this politely, so I won’t try.  Joe Biden is an incompetent idiot who doesn’t have a clue.  And we elected him.

gk

Sphere: Related Content

Democrats and Republicans

This is from an old (sometime in the 1980’s) Dave Barry column, but I ran across it today and I still find it funny.  It’s about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Unfortunately for our country, it’s pretty close to the truth….

“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They’re the kind of people who’d stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn’t bother to stop because they’d want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club.”

Republicans spend too much on defense, bailouts of inept corporations, and in new programs designed to show people that they’re really good guys, like the prescription drug bill.  Democrats spend too much on everything.  Neither is willing to raise taxes enough to pay for their spending.  The only time in the last 50 years that spending has been kept somewhat in check is when we had a Republican congress and a Democrat as president.

For 6 years – from January 1995 through January 2001 – Republicans controlled congress and Clinton was president.  Spending was kept in check and we almost had a balanced budget.  I know Clinton claimed surpluses, but he lied.  The “surplus” came from Social Security payments and the total federal debt increased each and every year, so there wasn’t actually a surplus – but it was as close as we’re ever likely to see from here on.

Obama is making Bush’s budget busting spending look like child’s play.  This year alone, we’re spending twice as much as we’re collecting in taxes.  We’re effectively borrowing money from the Chinese to make interest payments to the Chinese.  It’s the same as using your Visa card to make minimum payments on your MasterCard.  How long do the idiots on Capital Hill think they can continue this Ponzi scheme?

gk

Sphere: Related Content