Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

h1

Why Socialism is Not Compassionate

November 25, 2009

What we encounter in discussing issues today with Americans, is that many think socialism is good. In fact, they think that it is distinctly compassionate, thus truly moral. In this essay we will examine why socialism—and its compadres marxism and liberalism—are in fact immoral and inhumane. Conservatism, on the other hand, not only objectively produces better results for society, but is the only moral alternative.

If this notion is foreign to you, please bear with us. Consider logically your predispositions and examine the facts as we go through the arguments.

First, let’s define our terms. Socialism is government mandated activities or government control of assets. Marxism is using the power of the state to take money from some groups of citizens and give it to other groups (“redistribution of wealth” or “social justice”). Liberalism is a broader term that encompasses both of the above. Progressivism and statism are synonyms for liberalism. Because there is so much overlap, we will use these terms more-or-less interchangeably.

TEN REASONS WHY LIBERALISM IS NOT ONLY INEFFECTIVE BUT INDEED IMMORAL AND INHUMANE:

1. Redistribution of wealth is not JUSTICE, it is THEFT. Contrary to liberal thought, forced redistribution of wealth is immoral. True compassion is voluntary, and for the recipient it is challenging, personal, and spiritual. Government offers none of these criteria. While government may legitimately encourage voluntary giving—and encourage institutions that facilitate it such as Christian organizations—it has no moral authority to force people to give by the heavy hand of the state. (Helpful book: The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.)

2. Socialism and marxism reduce our freedoms, thus leading to tyranny. Freedom, we argue, is a legitimate moral end in itself—an unalienable right. Remember the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the foundational principle of America’s Founders. It is no less true today than in 1776. (Helpful book: Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin.)

3. When government redistributes wealth it even hurts the people it is trying to help! This is not necessarily intuitive, but observable. The welfare mess is a classic example of failed government intervention.  We have 50 years of experience which prove that oppressive utopian ideas of “compassion” only imprison the welfare class into perpetual poverty. An interesting current comparison is Texas vs. California. Texas has a conservative philosophy of government while California has taken the liberal utopian route. Texas, as of October 2009, had an 8.3% unemployment rate, while California’s unemployment rate was 12.9%—55% higher than Texas. Who is doing a better job for its citizens, including for the working class? (A book that is crucial to understanding the problem is Uncle Sam’s Plantation by black author Star Parker.) Watch this fascinating short clip of Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A.

4. Every time the government gets involved in something, in the long run it hurts the economy. Remember that the government does not produce anything. So every dollar taken out of the productive economy (or distorts the productive economy) reduces the total output of the economy. When this occurs, those at every income level suffer. Further, armed with the power to tax, government fosters stupid economic decisions because it is blinded without a profit motive. A recent example is how the federal government—through both legislation and Federal Reserve policy—encouraged banks to make home loans to people who could not afford them, precipitating the housing collapse. One must be blinded by pre-conceptions to fail to see that any intrusions into the economy with Soviet-like utopian ideologies are ultimately disastrous to its people. The more utopian liberalism is introduced into the system, the poorer it performs. (Important books: How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo and How Capitalism Will Save Us by Steve Forbes. Also, watch this short video about how the government worsened the Depression: http://dittosrush.blogspot.com/2009/11/thomas-sowell-explains-great-depression.html).

5. Socialism reduces the incentive to innovate and produce. If we are interested in increasing philanthropy and compassionate giving, we should grow the economy as much as possible so that philanthropy is possible.Capitalism is attacked by liberals as not compassionate. Liberals have this misplaced notion that profit is immoral. The voluntary exchange of goods and services for profit is not immoral. The fact is, the profit motive is the engine that grows the economy and has produced every modern convenience. Just take a moment to think through the things in your life and ask yourself why they are there. From the food you eat to the products you use, there has been an enormous amount of entrepreneurial energy and innovation that has made these things available to you. Government, on the other hand, not only does not produce anything, it creates shortages. Milton Friedman said, “If the Government was in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand.” An example in the real economy would be government health care. It is a certainty that the currently proposed government takeover of medicine will lead to fewer doctors. In one study, 45% of doctors would consider quitting if Congress passes health care overhaul. Bright students, faced with huge costs to attend medical school, will choose other fields. Such is a logical outcome from absurd policies. If we cover more people, we would need more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals, and more clinics. Promises of universal coverage cannot overcome the reality of universal shortages—leading to poorer service and rationing. Liberalism breeds an attitude of entitlement among the slothful. But socialism actually reduces incentives for productive activity of both the classes from whom the money is taken and to whom the money is given. If a father continually takes money from a successful son and gives it to a slothful son, eventually both sons will become less productive and tainted.

6. Studies show that government is much less efficient at the same tasks as private enterprise or charity. At least one study (http://www.gerrycharlottephelps.com/2009/08/fed-govt-wastes-more-money-than-business-charity.html) showed that Government administrative costs consume 35-55% of the total expenditures. So in the health care debate, for example, if insurance companies make a 2-5% profit on sales, they are still hugely more efficient at delivering health care services than government. And unlike the profit made by private concerns, that 35-55% loss by government benefits nobody—it is essentially lost (wasted). Is there not yet enough outrage at story after story of pork barrel spending in Congress? How numbed does one have to be to fail to see that government by its very nature not only wastes money but is bent to cronyism and fraud? Of course, man’s inherent sinfulness can show up in any organization. But the government has never run an efficient system of any kind anywhere, with the possible exception of the military.

7. Socialism rewards failure.  Consider the takeover of General Motors. There have been hundreds of automobile companies that have failed in our history. Every once in awhile, the free enterprise system purges itself of the losers, only to be replaced by more efficient producers that have a better model how to deliver more goods and services that consumers want to buy at a price they can afford. It is suicidal for society to resist this trend. A key tenet of investing is to cut your losses and reinvest in more promising things. In an investment portfolio, nursing your losers leads to a stagnant portfolio of trash. One may think, at first glance, that it is compassionate to save jobs by government interference. But in the long run, the economy is held back by government interference, hurting everyone. Check out this article which explains how even our prized anti-trust laws and the progressive income tax tend to reward the inefficient producers and slow growth: http://mises.org/daily/3856.

8. Socialism and marxism ultimately lead to financial destruction. The U. S. budget death spiral in which we now find ourselves places us at a very serious risk of economic collapse. See our blog entry below entitled “U. S. Budget Death Spiral.” As Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.” Let’s just consider the centerpiece of the liberal socialist agenda—Social Security. It is a madoff/ponzi scheme. It taxes workers to pay for those retired. There is no actual “Social Security Trust Fund”—even though this term is still commonly used. The liabilities of the Social Security system are unfunded promises to pay retirees. Together with Medicare, these transfer payments are by far the largest item in the federal budget, and are the primary reason why the federal government is on the brink of bankruptcy. The Social Security tax burden hits the low income worker’s budget the hardest. And studies show that if workers were to put what they pay in taxes instead into a conservative personal investment account over their working lifetime, they would have substantially more income at retirement! And they would own the account and thus have something to pass on to their heirs. See http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/you.html.

9. Liberalism destroys the Rule of Law. America’s Constitution is quite clear that there are specific enumerated powers of the federal government, and all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. The liberal agenda in legislation and court rulings has openly ignored the Constitution. Considering federal health care legislation, there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution to force people to buy something they do not want—yet our legislators could care less. When the Rule of Law is destroyed, despotism takes over. The result is predictable: If history is any judge, in time the Constitution will completely crumble into shambles and the United States of America will dissolve. History proves that the yearning for freedom always pushes man to demand the freedom that he is convinced is a God-given right.

10. Liberalism not only breeds hatred but indeed contributes to people’s deaths. Because liberalism is a relativistic worldview, some people are ultimately expendable. We see this in every leftist government, but often fail to make the connection to this ideology at home. Liberals attack conservatives as being self-centered, money hungry, and uncompassionate. But who are more likely champions of the innocent unborn and the elderly? The current health care debate should heighten the awareness of who is concerned about the almighty dollar over human rights. It is the liberals who are willing to cut back on mammograms for middle-aged women to save a few dollars. It is the liberals who would cut Medicare to seniors to save money. It is liberals who want free abortions, taking the lives of millions of innocent unborn children. We ask: who are truly compassionate and who are the hypocrites? Further, liberalism pits one class of citizens against another. It especially fosters hatred, envy, and covetousness toward the successful rather than admiration and inspiration. Bitterness filters down in an organization too. I ask you to consider how you are treated by government employees such as those behind the counter at the Post Office or tax office compared to most for-profit business. In which setting are you more likely to get more personal warmth and upbeat, caring service? Perhaps related to this in some way, liberalism also often discourages faith in God or creates new gods suitable to a pre-conceived ideology. (Helpful book: Godless: The Church of Liberalism, by Ann Coulter.)

Summary: Conservatism is constructive. Liberalism is destructive. We are not arguing that government has no role to play in society. We are arguing that there are usually constitutional solutions in the free market that are much more effective while being morally upright.

For a discussion of how Christianity influences government and society, see our website: http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government and also http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/The-Impact-of-Christianity.

h1

U. S. Budget Death Spiral

November 21, 2009

Please consider this chart of US debt from all sources (government and private) relative to GDP. In other words, this calculation shows debt relative to our ability to pay the debt. In case you cannot read the writing on the graph, what you see is that debt/GDP is higher now than even at the beginning of the Great Depression:

 

Now, consider the US Debt Clock at this website:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

And ponder the information in this article:

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/guestcommentaryview?art_id=10251

The article points out that the current nominal debt of the US Government is $11 trillion ($12 trillion as of November 2009). Divided by our population of 304 million, this works out to $38,000 per person. So a family of 4 is looking at $152,000 as their share of the debt. But that is just today. This is the tip of the iceberg for several reasons:

1.  The U.S.’s unfunded and off-balance sheet contingent liabilities stand at over $100 trillion depending on how you want to calculate them. The so-called unfunded liabilities include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae debt, etc. Remember, Social Security and Medicare are madoff/ponzi schemes. That is, these programs are not funded. They rely on taxing current workers to pay the benefits of the elderly. The system was never designed to handle the now burgeoning retired population; indeed, it cannot handle it.

2.  The 2010 federal budget projections show 40% of the federal government’s expenditures coming from borrowed money! (Does this fry your hair?!) The Obama administration said in mid 2009 that we will add another $9 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, bringing the nominal debt to a staggering $20 trillion. But according to www.whitehouse.gov, this figure by late 2009 was already out of date. It is now expected that we will add $12 trillion dollars in 10 years!

3.  But even these projections are themselves the tip of the iceberg. They are based on optimistic assumptions about an economic recovery. A “normal” economic recovery is unlikely (we argue impossible) given that consumer debt verses GDP is at an all time high.

Consumers have no more borrowing power to fuel the economy. We have mortgaged our future. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. What this means is that as consumers inevitably will go through an extended period of paying off debts over the next many years. Symptomatic of the problem is that as of November 2009, 23% of families who have a home mortgage are “underwater” on their mortgage—that is, they owe more on their home than the market value. This is an unprecedented problem for the economy. This situation alone is almost certain to make the economy very sluggish for the foreseeable future.

So the future budget deficits and thus debt projections are very likely understated, and perhaps understated by a large amount. But there is even more room for concern:

4.  The number of people in the United States who are 65 or older is expected to double by 2030, further taxing the welfare ponzi schemes.

5.  The interest on the debt ALONE may soon exceed our per capita income (http://www.scrivener.net/2009/08/six-ways-us-wont-escape-its-national.html).

6.  The nationalized health care proposals—which are likely to pass in some form—are not yet in the above projections. Every state that has tried such schemes (Maine, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Tennessee, and Oregon) has found that the costs are consistently enormously higher than projections. (“If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it’s free.”) There are numerous articles on the internet that you can find about the disasters that socialized health care has produced in these states. The economics on the administration’s socialized medicine is pretty simple. They want to add 46 million people and add over 40 new government bureaucracies–and are telling us that it will save money. Well, where is this money supposed to come from? The truth is that socialized medicine will force much higher taxes and more debt (not to mention bring worse health care).

Can the USA actually go broke? Well, yes!!

Finally, Americans must consider the root causes for this problem. What is the morality of your economic views? Please consider these questions:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/24/what_is_the_foundation_of_your_economic_beliefs_97371.html

 Other good links:

Scary: http://trueslant.com/nancymiller/2009/09/20/debt-bears-say-grants-optimism-is-bull/ 

How much debt is too much: http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/10/national-debt-default-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Who is more efficient: http://www.gerrycharlottephelps.com/2009/08/fed-govt-wastes-more-money-than-business-charity.html

Crippling: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393110640864526.html

History: http://www.american.com/archive/2009/september/debt-be-not-proud-the-sorry-tale-of-america2019s-out-of-control-spending

Jobs: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/14/saving_one_million_jobs_at_787000_per_job_97404.html

Cost of Cash for Clunkers: http://seekingalpha.com/article/152909-cash-for-clunkers-may-cost-up-to-45-354-per-vehicle and                                          http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/2009/09/cash_for_clunkers_cost_exceede.html

20 Questions about ObamaCare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2350627/posts

Budget problem compared to past cycles: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53246

One plan to solve the problem: http://seekingalpha.com/article/175860-can-the-federal-budget-be-balanced?source=hp_wc

 

h1

30+ Reasons for Obama Fans to Re-Consider

August 18, 2008

With evidence, logic, and references

the best summary of Obama’s politics on the web

By Charles Meek, Off-Grid Blogger

I was motivated to put this list together for a couple of reasons. First, I have heard some people say that they will vote for Barack Obama, but could not give any reasons why. But likewise, I have heard some people say they plan to vote against Obama, but again could not give any substantive reasons why. So I decided to put together solid information. Barack Obama has been objectively rated the single most liberal member of the US Senate: 100th out of 100. In fact, he has the most liberal voting record in US Senate history! Is this just so many words, or does it mean something? To our liberal friends: I know that your fundamental beliefs will be challenged here. But you are invited to respond, hopefully with logic and facts, not rants. Well, let’s take a look by categories.

ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE ECONOMY

1. Obama thinks the answer to high energy prices is to set our thermostats to a less comfortable level and inflate our tires. The fact is inescapable that liberal Democrats are obstructionists on energy and are squarely responsible for blocking all initiatives on energy policy. See http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/josh_painter/2008/jun/29/dems_to_america_no_you_cant. We will need between 16 and 20% more energy in the next 20 years (http://www.apienergyarcade.com/energyiq/). We need to move forward NOW to open drilling with modern environmental safeguards. We need more nuclear energy, more coal, more natural gas, and more oil. It is inexcusable that current government policy restricts access to 85% of potential offshore U. S. oil and natural gas development sites.

2. Obama is outright lying to the American people about taxing the middle class. He says he won’t raise taxes on the middle class. But he says he will take away the Bush tax cuts. That’s a tax increase, no matter how you spin it. Further, he has a free lunch syndrome: free college, free health care, free job training, free child care, more subsidized housing, government subsidized 401(k) plans, etc. Here’s a clue: There is no free lunch. According to the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union, Obama’s fiscal agenda will cost $344 billion per year (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300409426744996). He is running on a campaign of higher payroll taxes, higher corporate taxes, higher income taxes, eliminating the Bush tax cuts, higher taxes on dividends, and higher capital gains taxes. In fact, see this link to understand why there are 4 ways that Obama’s plan actually RAISES taxes on the middle class: http://http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116252/posts.  While I am fed up with Democrat’s and Republican’s continued failure to balance the budget, I have more hope for Obama’s opponent than for Obama. John McCain has been a long time champion against pork barrel spending, and has been a budget hawk more than most in Washington.

3. Obama’s tax policies will hurt the economy. Our economy is in a precarious situation. I think that if we falter here, a very serious recession is possible. Here is a most interesting comparison to the Depression era president Herbert Hoover. Hoover dramatically raised taxes in 1932 during the Depression, which economists now recognize as perhaps the biggest tax blunder in American history. This sucked money out of the productive economy. And there is more to compare with Herbert Hoover. According to the book How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo, here are some things that Hoover stood for: labor union power (which slowed production during the Depression), minimum wages (which increased unemployment during the Depression), international tariffs via the “Smoot-Hawley-Hoover Act” (which slowed international trade during the Depression), and controls on industry including the electric power and oil industries (which depressed the economy further). Do these policies sound familiar? The segment of the economy that will be hurt the most is small business owners. He says he will “cut capital gains taxes for small businesses.” But small businesses DO NOT PAY CAPITAL GAINS TAXES; THEY PAY INCOME TAXES! My wife and I counted up; we regularly do business with over 2 dozen small business owners, and we hate to think how they will suffer under an Obama presidency.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.   —Ronald Reagan (1986)

4. Obama does not understand basic economics. His answer to any problem is a government solution. But remember this: Government does not produce anything; it only re-allocates, which is always subjective. The government’s role is to get out of the way so free enterprise will work best, while setting rules for fair play, that is, laws against fraud, collusion, etc. Ronald Reagan insisted that the best answer is “to get the government off the backs of the people.” Over time, the more capitalism is allowed to flourish, the better off everyone at every socio-economic level becomes. The goal of our economy is to produce more goods and services that people want at an affordable price. Anything that hinders that goal will hurt the economy. That’s why corporate taxes should be minimized, so production and employment are not hindered. His promise to tax corporations while not hurting the middle class is ignorant socialist ideology; any tax on corporations will effect anyone negatively who gets a paycheck from the company or buys products from the company! Individual taxes should be minimized, so people can buy what is produced (and still have something left to save). Thomas DiLorenzo in his book How Capitalism Saved America proves that every time that government has intervened with a solution to a problem (no matter how well-intentioned), it ends up making it worse. Before you challenge this, read this book. Every American ought to read it. Check out these essays from Investor’s Business Daily: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx.

Here’s my specific suggestion. As President, John McCain should appoint Congressman Ron Paul to head a special committee to examine ways to reduce the size of the federal government.

Read the rest of this entry ?