Obama: The Hollow Colossus
It’s amusing to me to read and watch as lefties discover just what an empty shell Obama really is.
Here’s Cenk Uygur from the Huffington Post
Jennifer Rubin, a rightie, provides much the same analysis from a different perspective.
Here’s Jennifer Rubin’s take from the Washington Post
In the end what they’ll all realizing is what I’ve thought from the beginning. With no record of accomplishment Obama was able to present himself as being all things to all people. Voters could project their wants and desires onto him, seeing whatever they wanted to see. This has been the secret of Obama’s whole career. Doing nothing as he wafted up like a feather to ever higher positions. This, of course, has all come to a crashing halt. You can’t vote “present” when your president.
Is Universal Suffrage A Good Thing?
Bill Flax has a great article in Forbes questioning the value of universal suffrage. His basic point is that the reason that all democracies have failed in history is because they reach a point where people find it easier to vote themselves benefits, rather than earning it for themselves. America’s founders knew this to be true which is why they set up a constitutional republic, rather than a democracy. The basic principle is if you’re not paying into the system, why should you get to vote how the goods are divvied up?
Some of the comments to this article were pretty interesting. I found those that opposed his ideas to be quite hysterical and not really dealing with the issues he raised. The most eloquent was the comment below:
An admirably frank call for class war and the full entrenchment of contemporary oligarchy! I wish that most oligarchs — especially those who control media empires and prefer to hide behind a facade of populism — were so publicly bold in stating their real opinions. Then the often disguised conflict between oligarchy and democracy could be better clarified, and there might be some slim prospect of reducing the gross inequalities of wealth and education that stand in the way of an intelligent democracy.
The only way you learn anything in this world is to discuss things with people you don’t agree with. This is why I posted this reply to the above:
Hi Douglas,
Clearly you don’t agree with what the author wrote. I find your point of view interesting and would appreciate it if you dealt with the issue he raised. Namely, as the founding fathers knew, democracies don’t last in the long run. The reason why this happens is that invariably a sizable part of the population learns that it is easier to vote themselves benefits then to actually earn them through productive work. Politicians are all too eager to cater to this group as it is the easiest way to elected. As the saying goes, “When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s vote.” In the long run this cannot last as you need people to be productive and to produce good and services that others actually want. When you don’t have that the whole system starts to fall apart. This is why the founding fathers didn’t set up a democracy, they set up a constitutional republic. Do you disagree with the founders? What is wrong with my analysis above? What is wrong with the proposition that if you’re not paying into the till, you shouldn’t get to vote on how it is divided up? I’d really appreciate your insights.
Will Douglas respond? I can only hope.
One other thing. The article also had a great Bastiat quote:
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
So true.
The Problem With Public Sector Unions
Ben Shapiro has posted a great article concerning the video below over at Ricochet. It nicely explains why public sector unions are corrupting the political process while bankrupting governments at the same time.
I don’t think this issue has gotten near enough attention. Public and private sector unions are fundamentally different. In the private sector both owners and their unions are restrained by the marketplace. If the owners give too much, or the unions take too much, they may very well destroy the very business they both depend on. There is no such restraint in the public sphere. All you need to do is increase taxes or add more debt. The other big problem is the inherent conflict of interest in that the government is giving benefits to people who will vote and support them.
I honestly see no reason for public sector unions at all. When I’ve worked in the non-union private sector I’ve often had my wages determined by an outside firm hired by the company. They would look at my skill level and determine what they are worth in the marketplace. The recommendations are very realistic. They can’t be too low or the employer will lose valuable employees overtime. Likewise, they can’t be too high as the employer has to make a profit to stay in business.
I don’t see why this same system can’t exist in the public sector. As secretary in the public sector should be making the same as her counterpart in the private sector. In fact, I would say the public sector worker should make 5% less as a price for the increased job security the public sphere offers.
The authority that has been given up by Congress to Washington’s alphabet soup of agencies is another big problem that no one seems to talk about. To me it is in direct opposition to the spirit of the founding and bottom up government. But what to do about it?
I have two ideas.
First of all most of the agencies mention shouldn’t even exist at the federal level. Those that remain should have their abilities to pass regulations stripped. They can make recommendations to Congress, but only Congress can actually pass their recommendations into law. Any other ideas out there?
The Explosive Growth Of Government Spending
I’ve always enjoyed articles by Neil Reynolds. He combines real historical knowledge with solid economic analysis. I’m surprised he works for the Globe and Mail. Anyway in this article he shows how government spending has exploded just about everywhere. Why is this? I think my analysis in my Bob the Builder article explains it pretty well. If you’re in government, the easiest way to get elected is to promise people unearned benefits. In the short term you get elected. In the long term you’re Greece.
Here’s the article
Related articles
- The government spends well over half our collective earnings (about 57%). Result? (politics.ie)
- Welfare Economics (jimdew.wordpress.com)
Is Obama A Liar?
I’m not entirely sure if Obama lies deliberately. My take is that he’s gotten by for so long with people just believing anything he says it just comes naturally to him now. Being president is the first time in his life where his words actually mean something. Its the first time he’s actually had to match his words to deeds. I think the collision that is occurring between his fantasy world and reality is really beginning to take a toll on him. Thankfully for him though most of the press is willing to sacrifice their credibility to cover for him (with the exception of this article below).
Related articles
- Is Obama a Serial Liar? (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Why is Our Leader Such a Liar? (hiwaychristian.wordpress.com)
What The Reaction To Captain America Reveals
I’ve just written a post on Captain America and what it says about America’s current state of mind over at Richochet.com. The post itself turned out to be much longer than I originally anticipated. I’m planning on writing more on the subject, particularly on why it’s important for a culture to believe in itself. I’ll most likely be posting that one here. In the meantime, feel free to check out Richochet.com for my post on Captain America:
http://ricochet.com/member-feed/What-The-Reaction-To-Captain-America-Reveals
Why Government Grows (otherwise titled The Tale Of Bill, Bob, and Government Gus)
One of the big, make that maybe the biggest, issues that Conservatives and small government types have to come to grips is why government automatically grows. Even government led by such conservative stalwarts as Ronald Reagan or Margret Thatcher are not immune to this. Looking back at their records it becomes painfully obvious that, at best, they only managed to slow the rate of growth. Why does his happen?
One of the biggest reasons is simply the dynamic of modern (meaning, post WW2) elections. If you want to get elected the easiest way to do so is to simply bribe people. When asked to choose between getting something for nothing as opposed to standing on principle most people tick the box for option A. It’s always easier for any politician of any stripe to talk about some new vote getting program or benefit as opposed to running on thrift. As Obama himself said a few days ago, he’d rather be talking about new programs than plans to cut any amount of spending.
The question becomes, how to change this tendency that is built into the system?
I think I have the answer.
You might think the solution is radical, but I think it makes sense.
The solution is to privatize money.
Try this thought experiment on for size.
Imagine a simple country made up of two hardworking people, Bill and Bob, as well as a third person we’ll call Government Gus. Both Bill and Bob have worked hard and have $10 each. Government Gus, who does no work that anyone will pay for, has not a dollar to his name. Still, Government Gus wants to win an election so he needs to buy both Bill and Bob’s vote. “What do you want?” coos Gus. “Ask me for anything, it won’t cost you a dime!” Bill thinks about it and says, “If you give me free health care, you’ve got my vote!”
“No problem”, says Gus. “What do you want, Bob?”
Thinking this sounds like a great deal, aBob says “I’d like free daycare!”
“Your wish is my command!” says Government Gus. “All you have to do is vote for me!”
Both Bill and Bob vote for Gus, and Gus is true to his word.
However, he does it in a way that Bill and Bob didn’t count on.
With one sly hand he takes $5 from Bill. He then hands $1 to Bob with a big smile on his face.
“Here’s your free daycare!”
“Thanks!” says Bob. “This is great!” Bob is so happy in fact that he doesn’t notice that Gus has just picked $5 from HIS pocket.
He then turns back to Bill, hands him $1, and says “Here’s your free health care!”
“Thanks, I guess”, says Bill.
After a goods nights sleep Bill and Bob think over what just hit them. Although Government Gus did what he said he’d do, they’re actually poorer for it. As things stand now Bill has $6 ($5 + $1 of heath care) and Bob has the same “($5 + $1 of day care).
Bill and Bob are pretty bright guys. It’s obvious that they were better off before accepting Government Gus’s “free” stuff. What’s more Government Gus now has $8, and god only knows what he’s doing with it. What do you think will happen the next time election year rolls around. Will Government Gus find it so easy to bribe Bill and Bob with their own money? Probably not.
They might even vote for Big Liberty Pete, and tell Gus to hit the road and get a real job himself.
But what happens if Government Gus DOES have a skill?
What if he’s, say, a world class counterfeiter?
Let’s rerun the above scenario with this new condition factored in.
Government makes the same promises, but this time he prints out some money when Bill and Bob aren’t looking.
Both Bill and Bob are thrilled. At first blush they both appear to be better off. They both still have their $10, plus a $1 worths of benefits they didn’t pay for. What more could you want? Bill and Bob aren’t quite sure where Gus got the $8 he now has, but hey, every body is richer now, at least in paper.
And of course, that’s the problem. Real wealth has nothing to do with numbers printed on pieces of paper. Money is merely a medium of exchange, nothing more. An unknown word starts to creep into Bill and Bob’s vocabulary. That word is inflation. The cost of everything is going up, to the point where they are just as poorly off as they are in the first scenario.
There is one crucial difference, though.
They are not able to make the connection between Government Gus’s sneaky counterfeiting, rising inflation and their now poorer states. The only thing they know is that things are getting more expensive and their lives are getting harder.
What happens when the next election rolls around? Do they vote for Gus, who is offering more programs to help, or Big Liberty Pete? I think you know the answer.
And there in a nutshell is the reason for the explosive growth of government the world over in the 20th century.
The fatal mistake is allowing Government Gus his own printing press.
As soon as you do the concept of “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” is turned on its head.
Without the ability to counterfeit Government Gus has to tax people honestly. This puts the people in the drivers seat. They earn the money and they have the power. The only way government can grow is if the people let them. Most people will see the benefit in being taxed a little for the few things that people can’t do themselves. These are things like national defense or a court system. Beyond that it is obvious that Gus can’t do much beyond his core competencies very well. Only when the productive Bill and Bob’s of the world give him the ability to counterfeit is Gus able to create the illusion that he can do more.
So, the question is, why transfer the power from the people to the government at all? It amounts to taxation without representation. Government Gus’s the world over have been able to take money from productive citizens and use it to buy power without the citizens knowledge or consent. If anything it’s WORSE than taxation without representation as most people are not even aware that they’re BEING taxed.
The answer, then, is obvious. It’s time to get rid of national currencies.
This is obviously an out there idea which I’ll have to expand on in a future post.
Tell me why I’m wrong though.
Told you it was radical. 
