Recession, Recession - Please Go Away!

Since December of 2007, the United States of America has been in a - brace yourself - declared Recession. We often hear this word thrown around, scattered in our newspapers and cleverly evaded by our Representatives - even facetiously employed as the proverbial "butt" of Jon Stewart's jokes.

Any school age child could tell you that we are suffering harsh economic times - but what they cannot tell you is why.

In fact, many political pundits could not even tell you what exactly a "recession" entails. Believe it or not, there is a legal definition constituting the rather simplistic component(s): a decline in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. All that flowering nonsense about high unemployment rates, a decline in the stock market, and diminished interest rates are actually what accompany the initial drop in GDP. Persisting long enough, a recession will become a depression.

The troubles American car industry suffered in the past few years is a sufficient analogy to our general economy. Ford, for example, experienced a stark decrease in sales, shrinking profits, and accumulating debt - not unsimilar to the more general and all-encompassing national economic retractions. To marginalize the debt, employees were laid off and salaries were cut - again, just as occurred in the mainstream.

Without the "help" of federal dollars, Ford put out a fiscal report this month indicating earnings of $2.6 billion in the second quarter, with the expectation of further profits. In fact, they predict that by the end of next year, their profits will surpass their debt.

This is the 5th consecutive profitable quarter for the Ford Motor Company - a feat hardly imaginable two years prior. And while debt has surely accumulated, the company is working towards quickly paying it off.

Our federal government (and the Federal Reserve) could take a lesson from this example. Debt is not erased by more debt - it is eliminated through profits. I think it would go too far to assume that the US is bankrupt; but it is certainly headed in that direction. Spending will not, and obviously has not, set our economy back on the path to profitability. If you want to spend money, you have to have money. And the federal government has NONE. In fact, they have less than none - about $10 trillion less, in fact.

But then again, if I had hundreds of millions of blind minions paying my bills, I guess I might just increase their debt to pay for mine...

Don't forget that the largest source of revenue for the US Federal Government is your pocket. Saving is the only solution to this mess of a debt we've gotten ourselves into.

The Cato Institute Has Got it Just Right

Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute outlines the broken promises of our "generous" federal government in this piece published by the New York Post today. Finer words can not have been said on the subject, so here is the direct link:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11998

Happy reading!

So the Tea Party is Now Racist??

Recent attempts at discouraging the muster of the ever-growing Tea Party have only shone a light on how misdirected efforts by the opposition to weaken its credibility are not only outlandish, but they've also failed.

While I personally do not agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party platform, I can appreciate the general movement towards classic liberalism as the first step in a trend for limiting government. Many otherwise disillusioned political activists have been able to form something that is exciting people back into the spirit of our former, more democratic days.

Now, the NAACP has branded the organization as racist - tolerant of bigotry and discrimination. How can they possibly claim such an idea?? Because the Tea Party dispels that certain individuals should have special rights?? Because they outline that government lacks the right to favor one group over another?

Rand Paul ran into trouble of this sort when he claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violated certain aspects of the Constitution, including freedom of speech. Rather than allowing for the possibility of accepting his reasoning, the press immediately labeled him a racist.

Had they listened to his defense, they would have (hopefully) understood that the separation between private and public enterprise is the most important factor in any realm of this seemingly complex debate. For a government agency to deny that black people be allowed into their office building is an entirely different debate from a private restaurant refusing service to a table of Middle Easterners. Rand Paul was simply pointing out the fact that regardless of how he himself feels about such type of discrimination, the right to free speech is always more important.

And who is to say he is wrong? That he can acknowledge a hierarchy of rights does not mean that he is somehow less democratic - it means he has his priorities just right.

And plus, the fact that he is skeptical as to whether government can or cannot legally prohibit racism is not sufficient evidence that he himself is a racist.

And the same applies to the Tea Party.

All in all, another failed attempt to bring down the pro-liberty movement. What is so hard to accept about this way of thinking anyways? Is it the lower taxes? The lack of governmental intrusion in your personal life? The desire for peace??

I guess some people are inclined to let others take care of them. Me? I've always been a believer in self-reliability and personal efficacy. After all, who knows you better than yourself?

On the Gulf Crisis

Now deemed the worst oil spill in US history, the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico yet again solidifies the incompetency of the US federal government, and my support for limiting its role.


Milton Friedman once said that "the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem itself."


Obama glorifies himself as an honest, hard-working, dignified leader of academic merit; but his record may signify otherwise. His cries against the Bush's administration handling of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina might indicate his advocacy for the role of federal government in crisis management; yet for some reason, he is deflecting sole responsibility for the spill's clean-up unto officials other than himself.

Sure, the situations differ - where hurricane Katrina's effects claimed American lives, the oil spill has a more focused environmental impact. But the contradiction is the same.

In a recent interview with Politico, Obama rather bombastically claimed that "it is fair to say [that], if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said that we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government over regulation and wasteful spending."

As if to say that the management crisis is the fault of those weary of unnecessary government spending and regulation - that had they not stood in the way of Obama's exalted plan for big-government takeover of private industry, this catastrophe would have surely been thwarted... hmm...

One of the most damning conclusions reached after Katrina was that people actually believed that more legislation could have sooner remedied the hardship felt along the gulf shore. In fact, this was precisely wrong - it was too much bureaucratic nonsense and red tape that kept relief efforts (like the distribution of clean water) impossible. Doesn't anyone remember FEMA??

In any event, Obama's pompous reaction to the interviewer's suggestion that he is simply not doing enough speaks to his very nature. Since his inauguration, he has insisted that we stop passing blame from individual to individual, corporation to corporation; yet he insists that he cannot be held to any degree of responsibility in the Gulf situation.

Maybe it's true that the role of the executive is not suited for single-handedly solving the hardship of the spill; but if this is the truth, then Obama and his supporters owe one big apology to the Bush administration. I guess the view from the top is different, especially when you're trying to uphold the facade that you do, actually, care.

The Cost of it All

A few weeks back, my professor of Campaigns and Elections reported (as fact) that those with less political knowledge are more likely to mistrust government. Interesting...

I question this logic, not only in theory, but also in practice. This type of thinking would presume that those who are more familiar with the political system and current office-holders are more willing to offer their trust to the government. So in effect, those who see the corruption and secrecy of politicians (e.g., Rod Blogojevich, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumslfeld etc.) by some reach of the imagination are actually less intelligent.

In my personal opinion, this sentiment is precisely backwards. If I were to teach this class, I would argue that it is those with more political knowledge who are more likely to mistrust government.


It is so easy to assume that with the natural authority that any government presupposes, that what government does is in the best interest of the citizens. It is much more difficult to speak out against such an authority, calling special attention to the violations and alternative motives behind their every action.


It is imperative to democracy that we question our leaders, holding them personally responsible for the outcomes of their actions.

And here is why:

In the Milgram experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale University, he set out to understand why Nazi soldiers had complied to Hitler's greusome and inhumane agenda. He set up his experiment with a confederate "learner" and random participant as "teacher." The teacher was to read a list of name pairs, which were then to be remembered by the learner in an effort to test the effects of punishment on learning, so far as the teacher was concerned. Everytime the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher was to administer a shock of progressively increasing voltage.


What the teacher was unaware of was the fact that this experiment was rigged; actually, the learner was not hooked up to any shock machine. Instead, he played a tape with pre-recorded responses to the increasing painful "shocks." The teacher could hear the yelps of the learner through a semi-soundproof wall, and their reactions were observed.


Time and time again, the teacher would stop administering the test and question the experimentor on the safety of the setup. As soon as it was firmly established that the experimentor was solely responsible for any harm to the learner, the teacher would more often than not administer the most lethal shock, sometimes even when the cries of the learner were no longer audible.


What the experiment exposed was that people were willing to comply with the will of an authority so long as their name was cleared of any misconduct. With the diffusion of responsibility inherent in this experiment, Milgram concluded that Nazi soldiers were deflecting their own sense of humanity on to an authoritative figure.


The lesson from this is to question authority. The participants in the Milgram experiment looked to the experimentor as a highly educated, well-to-do scientist running a study at Yale University. By nature of his status, they abandoned their own sense of morality and complied to the will of the experimentor, so long as personal responsibility was deflected to a higher authority. To say that those with less political knowledge is more likely to mistrust government completely contradicts these findings. In fact, it can be safely assumed that questioning an authoritative figure supposes individual responsibilty - something lacking in the Milgram experiment.


The experiment tolled a particularly fascinating effect on me; when I first heard of the conduct of the participants, I assumed that I myself would have complied to the will of the experimentor, so long as he claimed responsiblity for the damage. Since then, I have questioned the actions of those in authority over me.


Many would come under the false illusion that to question the actions and motivations behind governmental maneuvers is to espouse anti-patriotism - as if assuming that perhaps politicians are not always working in the best interests of the people is a far-fetched idea. But the Milgram experiment demonstrated that when we abandon our own sense of morality and intellect unto the responsibilty of an authority, we abandon our sense of being.


Milgram originally set out to understand how the Nazi soldiers could have possible committed such atrocities during WWII, and namely, the Holocaust. What he discovered was not that these young soldiers were mindless-drones, but rather, that they had handed over free-will in exchange for a remission of responsibility. This is my fear, and why rather than blindly vesting my faith in the "good intentions" of big government, I ask questions.


So, with respect to the health care overhaul, I question not only the intentions of politicians, but also the implications of establishing such a monstrosity of a bill and whether or not the benefits outweight the consequences.


The intentions of politicians are obvious (and always the same) - reelection. Previous entries of mine have established why I don't believe the health care reforms will actually help anyone. The implications, however, are far more reaching.


Inflation is always the same - printing money increases the money supply, which devalues the dollar, which eventually drives costs up. There is a healthy level of inflation for any growing economy, but it is usually around 2-3%, not upwards of 6% that we saw last September after the bailouts. On top of that is the health care bill - another billion dollar shopping-spree that our economy can't even begin to comprehend. This doesn't help anyone - this kind of inflation makes 5 years down the road very difficult, especially for the middle class.


Now bring this logic one step further - how does America fix this downward spiral of spending and debt? My prediction... by establishing a VAT tax. Nearly every other developed country employs one, mainly because their socialistic federal programs need to be funded somehow. Look at the rates of some of our "democratic friends:"


Denmark: 25%


Germany: 19%


India: 12.5%


Israel: 16%


Sweden: 25


U.K.: 17.5% (standard)


The difference, for Americans, however, is that we live under a Federal system; we pay both a federal and state income tax, a payroll tax, and state and local taxes. A federal VAT tax added to these and the US will have the highest tax rates in the world - a tough feat to accomplish considering our competition.

There are three lessons in all of this:

1. Think for yourself

2. Don't believe what you hear

3. Question authority

Being a patriot involves much more than the diligent acceptance of government's words as truth; the most patriotic people understand both intentions and implications are not afraid to speak out against the contradictory agendas of politicians, Republican and Democratic, alike. To conclude that the least politically intelligent are the most likely to mistrust government is to undermine how precious a commodity like trust can be.

This is an insult to those brave enough to think for themselves everywhere.

On Health Care Reform...

While I firmly believe that every individual should have access to some sort of health care, I certainly do not (nor will I ever) vest my faith in the governmental prescription of such.


On a fundamental level, there is an inherent contradiction in passing a federal health care bill. There exists no provision of the Constitution calling for the required coverage of its citizenry. Therefore, the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill violates the very document those "yes-voters" vowed to uphold.

Many of those in favor of this bill lay their political priorities on a moral basis. Morality certainly has a place in society, but unfortunately, federal legislature is not one. And furthermore, isn't the forced imposition of morality, by nature, immoral? Maybe it is our duty as human beings to provide care for those unable to provide care for themselves; however, coercing charity is certainly comparable to ignoring the needy all together.

On another level, many believe passing health care reform represents that government now cares. Let me be clear: government officials do not care about anything beyond being re-elected. To support health care is one thing. Of course everyone should be guaranteed access to health care. Health insurance is an entirely different discussion.

Insurance, by definition, measures risk. It is a bet that both party and insurer contractually enter, each understanding that a loss for one equals a gain for another. An insurance company bets that, for example, you will remain healthy, while you bet that you will fall ill. If you fall ill, you win and the insurance company loses. Your bet has paid off, and by preempting your illness, you have successfully measured the risk against becoming sick.

Lets look at this from another angle: life insurance. When purchasing life insurance, you bet that you will die before your premiums have paid for the face amount. The insurance company, on the other hand, looks at your medical records and enters the contract based on the bet that you will live longer (and therefore pay more) than your policy's face value. The principles of all insurance contracts are the same; in any arena, purchasing insurance is a choice, both on part of the insurer and the insured.

Say, then, that the House was voting on the passage of life insurance reforms. Would they have reached the same conclusion - that life insurance is a right, and not a privilege? Doubtful, especially considering that life insurance cannot be confused with something as precious as health care.

The health insurance industry is now being held sway to the federal government. Those in Washington can now interfere in the private sector, dictating that health insurance companies must provide care to all - regardless of preexisting conditions and changes in occupation.

If government cared about its citizens, it would instead focus on actual health care reform.

And finally, even if you disagree with what I above argued, you cannot contest the fact that government simply cannot pay for this bill. With already soaring (and constantly increasing) deficit spending, another trillion dollar bill is simply irresponsible. To anyone in favor of such reforms, remember that it is our pockets that will be suffering in the end.

If there is any bright side to the passage of the reform bill, then I only look to the words of my father when he so poignantly stated that spending a trillion dollars on (attempting) to help people is better than spending a trillion dollars on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, but if you ask me, eliminating both sources of such spending is the best solution to maintaining freedom in America.

Censorship, By Any Other Name...

Lady Gaga's newest music video for her most recent #1 single, "Telephone" has brought an interesting array of attention to the issue surrounding what many believe to be the fine line between art and the Constitutionally obscene.

While the video is certainly intended for mature audiences only, it still baffles me that people believe they would do society a service by banning the video all together. Take a look at this interview from Fox News:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kud17cXaajo

Sandy Rios, of the Culture Campaign, goes as far as to say that this type of provocative entertainment is "poison for the minds of our kids."

First, it is necessary to point out that the video had multiple warnings against the "violent" nature of the short, even forcing it to air in the late night TV slot. This was an obvious effort by the E! network to avoid backlash as demonstrated by harsh words of Sandy Rios.

Second, regardless of whether or not people want their children to be exposed to the messages inherent in the video, banning it altogether would violate the First Amendment provision of the U.S. Constitution allowing for the freedom of speech. Lady Gaga, as an artist, has every right to express herself, no matter how gory or provocative her ideas may be.

Third, the idea of access is an important concept to consider. When early jurisprudence on obscenity began emerging, the Court determined that there were three tiers as defined under the Miller Test to evaluate whether or not a work held Constitutional protection:

1. "Whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest;
2. "Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;
3. "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (413 U.S. 15, 1973).

The music video violates none of these provisions - it is not pornography, by any means, and so there is no Constitutional basis for any of Rios's claims. And to this end, the video is not forced unto anyone's TV or computer screens; it must be sought out, so viewing it is a personal choice and not in the face of the American populace.

I find it a travesty in American politics when people like Sandy Rios appear on national television advocating for the censorship of the artistic expression of a pop-icon. While she may personally find Lady Gaga's style and method of expression offensive, she is certainly out of line when implying (through her call to outlaw the video) that her personal opinion should be valued above anyone else's. Perhaps instead of worrying about her children's exposure to the harsh realities of freedom of expression, she could devote that energy to a worthwhile cause, like fighting hunger in Africa.