Thoughts on Liberty, Economics & Life...

Tim Thomas, American Hero...

2012-01-27T16:18:00.000-08:00

As a father of three kids - two of whom are home-school students - I have a vested interest in exposing them to unique examples of American courage. Sometimes the courage shows up in the form of a soldier doing remarkable things for his country. Sometimes it is a common citizen fighting an eminent domain taking of her property. And sometimes it takes place on a big stage where millions of Americans get to analyze and comment on the actions of another.

Enter Tim Thomas, the goalie for the NHL's Boston Bruins.

In case you missed it, The Boston Bruins visited President Obama at the White House a few days ago where he honored the team for winning the 2010-11 Stanley Cup. Not attending was Mr. Thomas who said,

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threating the Rights, Liberties and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal Government. Because I believe this, today I excercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."

Of course, liberals and other intellectually-challenged Americans who know little and care even less about what Mr. Thomas is referring to are now engaged in Facebook, Twitter and other public formats to point out how he is going against "tradition" and is "disrepecting" the President. Others claim that since he makes $5 million per year he "owes" his employer his spot in a White House photo.

George Diaz of the Orlando Sentinel argued that no one is seizing his property or violating his rights so he should just go to the White House and stop being a hypocrite. I guess Mr. Diaz has never heard about progressive income taxation....

I would like to ask Thomas's critics the following:

In the name of "tradition" should Americans have continued to subject their lives to the rule of Kings? Should black Americans, in the name of the Jim Crow "tradition" gone along with segregation? Should women, in the name of "tradition" stayed in the kitchen?

Yeah, yeah, I know going to the White House with your teammates does not compare to Jim Crow laws or discrimination against women. BUT, going along with ANYTHING you do not believe in just because of tradition is a violation of the principle of liberty - a principle that Mr. Thomas should have been applauded for having the guts to excercise.

As for disrepecting the President. Does the President respect us? Do any of you see the arrogance of this man as he tells us how government can use our money better than us and how "all Americans know" that the rich don't pay enough in taxes and that all of us should be forced to buy health care or face a fine and/or jail?

Mr. Thomas, in the tradition of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson simply did what more Americans need to do. He stood up for freedom in an unpopular way in order to help educate the rest of us that a photo with the President means NOTHING when our President is championing the fight to rid this nation of all that we were meant to be.

President Marx does it again....

2012-01-25T05:45:00.000-08:00

Over a good cup of coffee this morning I read excerpts from the speech our Great Socialist Divider gave last night. Someone please wake me up when this nightmare ends.

On January 20, 1989 Ronald Reagan left Washington, D.C. as arguably the greatest President in our nation's history when it comes to economics.

Twenty years to the day later, Barack Obama moved into the White House and is on track to become one of the worst (FDR still rules the top spot) President's ever in terms of economic policies.

It is amazing that in only 20 years our nation has gone from a place where people like Chris Gardner (see The Pursuit of Happyness) look around, spot opportunity then go about taking advantage of said opportunity, to a nation where people like the 44.4% of our country now living off of government checks, look around, spot "unfairness" and line up to live off of you and I.

Our President is the Great Cheerleader of the "It's not fair" movement that is gutting our economic liberty and destroying the future of today's young people.

Over and over again last night he harped on inequality, unfairness and the role of envy in creating his dream for America. He reminded us once again that only until millionaires pay their fair share in taxes can America be great again. He never explained HOW taking from people who gave us Facebook, Apple, Whole Foods, etc. will lead to more prosperity and opportunity for the middle class, but somehow in his distorted, intellectually flawed view of markets he THINKS rich people will just blindly send in the money while they add more workers to their payrolls!??!!??

I have told my children that if they stay in America (not recommended) that they are going to have to learn how to be a successful adult in a poor country.

We have the omnipotent champion of socialistic justice to thank for that.

President Obama discovers Economics

2012-01-20T06:26:00.000-08:00

Our President arrived in Disney World yesterday to announce a new plan to bolster tourism in the United States. His plan calls for streamlining and shortening the process visitors from places like Brazil and China have to go through in order to bring their money to our shores.

In his speech President Obama said, "People want to come here. So this is what it's all about: telling the world that America is open for business." He went on to add, "The more folks who visit America, the more Americans we get back to work. It's that simple."

Amen, Mr. President, and congratulations for this rare display of sound economic reasoning. You are 100% correct in your view of the role of tourism in our economy.

Now, if I may help you a little more since you did not bother to stop off at my office yesterday for a visit...

Mr. President, you need to ask yourself why so many more Chinese and Brazilians are able to get over here and visit the Magic Kingdom. Afterall, that takes some serious money to afford a vacation in Orlando.

The money has to come from greater economic opportunities in Brazil and China. Greater economic opportunity in Brazil and China has come from rising levels of economic freedom in those nations. Rising levels of economic freedom has been born out of lower taxes, fewer regulations and greater protection of private property rights. Those policies came from a fundamental shift in government's view of its relationship with the people and businesses in Brazil and China.

Mr. President, Americans would like to go to Orlando or the Grand Canyon or New York City too. In order to do that, we need more money. More money means we have more jobs, etc. etc.

All you have to do today is announce that you are going to pursue the same pro-business, pro-taxpayer policies other nations have pursued and you will not only reap the benefits of foreign tourism, but the American people - whom you have the first obligation to - will be able to enjoy more vacations too.

Ode to a Pine Tree

2012-01-17T10:53:00.000-08:00

I arrived at work today to find that the view from my office has been destroyed by "progress". Specifically, a big swath of forest on Valencia property was destroyed - including one of the biggest and prettiest pine trees I have ever seen - so that another building can be built.

Before any of you faint at the prospect that I have become a member of Green Peace or am connected by DNA or poor-reasoning skills to Albert Gore, please don't fret. I still believe in capitalism, property rights and progress.

I do not believe in destroying trees in the name of tradition.

What I mean by that is simple. Every area of our lives - when it comes to supply and demand - has found a way to meet up over the Internet. We can buy virtually anything online, any time of the day. Yet, when it comes to education, the suppliers still think that the demanders must be forced to meet at a specific time and place as if we all have the same monetary value of time.

Think about it. Once this new building goes in students will be told, "Go to building ten on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 1:00-2:15PM to consume this class." That student can buy underwear from someone in the Ukraine at 3:18 in the morning and never meet or speak to the seller. Why couldn't that student learn most subjects in the same manner?

I currently teach 3 "live" classes and 5 online classes. Some of the best students I have ever had never met me or heard me teach live. They use online lectures by me and people who are better than me in some areas, online discussions, websites and a book that can be purchased online, and do just fine.

When they have questions they email me or call me - and no pine trees die in the process.

I realize much of what we do in education is done better (cooking classes, for example) when it is done "on site", yet I cannot help believe that if we would just embrace what the computer and cyber-space geniuses have given us we could teach more students - effectively - when and where they want to learn - and in the process keep alive trees that have managed to survive everything but the poor thought process of the powers that be.

Rome...circa 2012 (from the January 17, 2012 Orlando Sentinel)

2012-01-12T16:29:00.000-08:00

Last month I traveled to my hometown in Southeastern Oklahoma to visit with old friends and friends of my family. While I was there I had the honor of spending time with a 94-year old gentlemen who used to raise bees on my family's land back in the 1970s. In my youth he represented all that was good about small-town America. "Joe" was a gentle giant of a man, full of good humor, kindness, humility and wonderful stories.
However, he was never willing to tell any stories about his time spent in Europe during World War II. It did not help matters much that when I was in elementary school I once asked him if he ever killed anyone during that war.

This visit proved to be very different. He told me and my family how he had served in General George Patton's Third Army and what it was like to race across all of Europe fighting against German resistance. He mentioned that he was paid $21 per month for the more than four years he spent in the Army and that he could not believe that he never got a scratch while so many of his friends never got to see their wives and children again.

Two weeks later - back in my college economics classes - I handed out an essay question to 137 students that asked them if they would be willing to support a law that BANNED THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY and imposed heavy, progressive income taxes on people in order to bring about a reduction in poverty and "greater sense of community".

Some of my students recognized that the wording of much of this question came directly from The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848. These students eloquently pointed out the severe and dangerous consequences of abolishing property rights and punishing productive human beings with the tax code.

Yet, 28% of my students - college students who are supposedly studying in order to earn more income and acquire property later on - wrote that they would support, enthusiastically in some cases, the elimination of the right to property for Americans and far greater taxation.

If almost three in ten college students support such severe measures in order to impose equality on all of us, one can only imagine what the rest of the population of citizens - many of whom are far less educated - might support.

This week I spent most of day two of my classes reading to my students the story of the Fall of the Roman Empire. Many were astounded to hear about the source of Rome's wealth - free trade, modest taxation and private property rights. Equally surprising to many was the progression towards a massive welfare state, rising taxes, onerous regulations and the wildly out of control creation of money to pay for Rome's expansion of plunder.

I sincerely hope that in the weeks to come they will come around to a greater understanding of the concepts of free markets, the dangers of the Welfare State and the historical proofs of the superiority of liberty over the tyranny that comes from the good intentions of elected officials.

Before I left the home of the World War II veteran he said to me and my family that "some things are about to happen to the United States that the American people are not going to believe."

I could see the concern and sadness in his eyes as he said this. I can only imagine what it must be like to be part of the last generation of Americans who had to lay their lives on the line for the liberties this nation enjoys only to see the gift they gave us fading away.

Australia and Property Rights

2012-01-09T12:10:00.000-08:00

For the year 2011 The Heritage Foundation has Australia ranked in the top 5 in economic freedom with a property rights score of 90. Please watch this video and join me in contacting the Heritage Foundation so that this issue can properly be considered in ranking Australia where it belongs.

January 20, 2017

2012-01-06T04:50:00.000-08:00

Now that Rick Santorum has become the Republican's Presidential wannabe of the week, it is clear that President Obama will be re-elected in November. I have got to believe that somewhere in the White House, laughter and knee-slapping is echoing past the portraits of former presidents.

We have gone from Michelle Bachmann winning the straw-poll in Iowa last summer to Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and now Santorum being the gal or guy who can really, really lead us back to the 1980s. To quote the wise NFL analysts on ESPN......."Come on, man."

Everytime someone I know asks me to register as a Republican - so I can at least vote in the Florida primaries I just chuckle and say, "Now why exactly would I want to do that?" Why would I throw my support to a party that has just picked a guy who voted with Bush to shove trillions of our dollars into prescription drug benefits for senior citizens and whose platform is largely based on imposing morality - Republican morality that is - on all of us sinners?

James Madison once said, "If men were angels there would be no need for government." However, he understood that government cannot make men angels.

Today, Republicans believe government can create angels. This is how we got "Compassionate Conservatism" under George W. Bush and a "Kinder, Gentler America" under George H.W. Bush. All of this taxpayer-financed kindness and compassion has gutted the Reagan Revolution, made Bill Clinton look like Barry Goldwater and has launched us right into the Obama years - years that will be looked back upon as the acceleration of the beginning of the end.

I will repeat here that Ron Paul remains a voice in the wilderness, but that voice fails the American Idol standard for picking presidents and is also drowned out by radical Libertarianism that the American people do not want.

Pragmatic Libertarianism disguised as Reagan/Goldwater Conservatism will have to be wrapped up in a pretty face and nice fitting suit in order to reverse the Bush/Obama Plague.

That means that we will have to wait for Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio to run.

That means 2016.

That means Obama gets to "finish" what Republican Socialism started.

The Greatest Libertarian Ever

2011-12-09T13:16:00.000-08:00

When one considers what it means to believe in liberty we are left with a pretty simple, but powerful, idea that people are born with the right to do anything peaceful. That is to say that as long as our actions do not violate the life, liberty or property rights of another, we are free, or should be free to pursue those acts that we believe will make us happy, prosperous, content, fulfilled, or whatever other word we choose to use.

When Republicans ask me why I am a Libertarian I tell them because Republicans only believe in economic liberty (Goldwater/Reagan/Ron Paul/Paul Ryan Republicans I should say...), but do not seem too thrilled with the idea of social liberty - the rights we have to do things to ourselves, or do things with other consenting adults that do not create negative externalities that are clear and measurable.

Democrats say, "Well, we believe in social liberty, so why not become a Democrat?" That is easy to answer. Democrats, by and large, do not believe in economic liberty. They are mistrustful of mankind's ability to pursue our self interest in a productive manner. They believe in taking from one to provide a living for another. They advocate rules and regulations that prevent people from entering into consensual contracts and on and on and on....

So, as a Libertarian I choose to advocate social and economic liberty - even when people use their liberty to do things of which I disapprove. That is the hard part - and it is why so few people are Libertarians. If I, for example, find it to be morally reprehensible for people to engage in homosexual relationships, I must - if I truly believe in freedom - never support any law restricting the non-violent, consensual acts of homosexuals. In essence, gay people have the same rights I have to marry and have lasting relationships without the tyranny of the majority trampling their rights.

That is why, if we seriously consider which person was the greatest advocate of Libertarian philosophy, we are left with only one true choice....

Jesus.

When you pour through the New Testament you will find multitudinous verses and parables where Jesus supports economic liberty. He never once said government should take away the earnings of one person to give to another. Rather, he clearly said that we have "free will" to give or not give to those in need.

He supported the idea of property, contracts, compensation based on the agreements between labor demanders and labor suppliers, and working for a living.

In the realm of social liberty we are told that "all things are permissible, but not all things are wise." We see in his teachings that people should "pull the plank out of your own eye before you pull a splinter out of a brother's eye" and that people who are without sin should feel free to stone those who do sin.

He never supported homosexuality, drug use or prostitution. He led people by his teachings to repent for our sins and stay away from sin. He warns us about what will happen if we use our free will to keep sinning but he never supports manmade laws to regulate the lives of sinners.

Christians should pray for people who engage in economic greed or moral depravity, but as long as greed and depravity does not involve a forced taking or some other violation of our rights, Christians cannot turn to government to make rich people give or make drug users put down the needle.

Thus, as Christmas approaches, I would like to invite all of you to consider the difference between forced will and free will - and consider what our world would be like if Jesus had never arrived to show us how to use our free will for good.

Merry Christmas.

The Tenacity of Hope

2011-12-02T11:29:00.001-08:00

Over the past few days I have had the incredible opportunity to talk with hundreds of Americans via email and telephone in response to my interviews on Fox & Friends, The Neal Boortz Show and other programs. For those of you who are new to my blog I want to thank you for your heartfelt support in the fight to restore liberty in our struggling nation.

As any liberty-lover who has clear vision can see, it is 11PM in our nation's history. World economic history is quite clear as it pertains to the destiny of all nations who have allowed government to gain ground and liberty to yield. That destiny is one of poverty and an arrival at the doorstep of inconsequence as a nation. No country can continue to be ignorant and expect to be free. No country can allow half the populace to plunder the other half without destroying incentives to work, save and produce.

A Cuban refugee once told Ronald Reagan that America must remain a beacon of liberty because if we go away, refugees will have no other place to go.

Think about that. Can we all fit in Hong Kong or Estonia or New Zealand? No, we can't.

Every other empire that died under the weight of bloated government failed to have the one thing we have going for us. When other nations have begun to die, the people in those nations could not look back in their history and see the word "liberty" on their reset button. They all had a history of kings, czars, dictators and emperors so they did not know how to restore what was being lost.

America's reset button has the word liberty on it. We invented the recognition of the concept that all people have a God-given right to life, liberty and property. Therefore, it is possible that we can become the first nation in the history of the world to ascend to the top, begin to die and then prevent that death. All we have to do is continue to teach people about liberty, what it looks like, what the consequences of lost-liberty must mean and we will have a shot to turn this government-led Titanic around before we hit the iceberg of entrenched socialism.

So, to all of you joining my blog, welcome!! I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,
Jack Chambless
http://www.jackchambless.com/

71.4%

2011-11-21T09:15:00.000-08:00

I just finished grading my second exam of the semester - an exam that covered only four chapters. The chapters covered supply and demand analysis and health care economics. Here are the numbers:

A - 2
B- 5
C - 17
D or F - 60

71.4% of my students failed with a D or F.

Here is the most amazing part: The highest grade was a 99 - earned by a Chinese male. The second highest grade was a 96 - earned by a Russian female. The third highest grade was an 86 - earned by an Indian male.

There it is. While my American students - spend their time on Facebook, playing video games, YouTubing, texting and generally goofing off, my Chinese, Russian and Indian students are reading, studying and representing a picture of where this nation is heading.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Technology and Stupidity

2011-11-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

It is 2:05PM. It is Thursday. It is November 17th. I am sitting in a lab at my place of employment learning about all of the bagillion web-based tools that I am supposed to be using to educate my students. I do not own a cell phone, I have never been on Facebook, sent a Tweet or posted a Youtube clip. I still shop for VCRs at garage sales because I think they might make a comeback. I use Rand McNally instead of a GPS. To me a bluetooth is something you get from drinking a Slurpee.

I spent 1984-1991 in college. Back then, my professors had a piece of chalk and I had a book. There was no Power Point, no nothing. We used the inter-Library loan when the university library did not have a book. If we were lucky, our professor used colored chalk on occasion.

Funny, but I managed to learn a tremendous amount in this primative setting. So did others I went to college with.

When I became a professor I still had chalk and a book. Maybe a room had a t.v. and VCR but that was it.

20 years ago, 75% of my students passed my classes with a grade of A, B or C. 25% made a D, F or dropped the class. Today, in our world of ....hold on, he is teaching us about Camtasia, Jing, Tubechop, Flickr and other stuff....

O.K., I am back. Today, in our world of endless technology, 25% of my student make an A, B or C. 75% fail or drop my classes. I am a better economist today then I was then. The Law of Diminishing Returns is still years away for me. Yet, my students are dumber than ever.

How can this be? Why do my students who fail no longer make a 50 or 55 when they fail but routinely make grades around a 20 or 25?

I think we have destroyed students with technology. Public schools are a joke. We all know that. But access to free market technology has taken poorly prepared students and given them an entertainment option that takes away valuable study time. In the meantime, professors like me have to spend hours and hours learning about all of the tools we should be using to entertain students. I learned today that by going to Xtranormal.com I can make animated movies of my lectures!

Give me some chalk and I can teach the world. Give me animated movies and I can add to the silliness that has made the world stupid.

It is now 2:16PM. I have 44 minutes of my life yet to be wasted before I can go home.

Goodbye for now.

No more Stupid Texans.....PLEASE!!!!!!

2011-11-11T06:40:00.000-08:00

In case you missed it, Rick Perry, his 2.22 GPA, Texas drawl and all, had one of the major mental meltdowns of all-time a few nights ago while debating his Republican counterparts. He insisted, if elected President, that he would abolish three government agencies. Then, he started naming them. The only problem is that he was unable to count to three. He got Commerce and Education. He looked at Ron Paul for help, but Ron told him there are five agencies that need to be axed. Someone suggested the EPA. Yes, thats it! Uh, no....that was not it. He struggled and stared and then said Oops.

Oops.

We have had two other oops moments with Texas Presidents. First, there is Lyndon B. Johnson - my candidate for the second worst president in our nation's history. He gave us "The Great Society" which historians will some day point to as a key variable that ended the United States. He gave us the acceleration of the criminal war called Vietnam, which gutted our credibility around the globe. And, of course, since he is from Texas he gave us an arrogant, "I know everything" big mouth to go along with his policies.

Decades later we got to have 'W' as prez. It would take more words than I have hours this weekend to write about the failures of this relatively unbright Texan who managed to do even more economic and foreign policy damage than LBJ while walking and talking with the same "Everything is Bigger in Texas" swagger.

Now we have another....dare I say....idiot running for President from the Lone Star state. We actually have two, but Ron Paul is actually a bright guy with a big dose of humility in his being. The other fellow - this Perry guy - may be dumber than LBJ and 'W' combined with even more arrogance, since he is the prettiest of the three.

There is a reason Perry could not name three agencies and it had nothing to do with the pressure of a nationally-televised debate. It is because the man does have the core conviction of a Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. He is a used-car salesman with feathered hair and a nice face who appeals to that component of America that uses "American Idol" standards to judge politicians.

Thankfully, his run is now over as he becomes a YouTube sensation.

Hopefully, no more Texans - who act like Texans act - will be in the running again anytime soon.

The Greatest "Community Organizer" in History

2011-10-17T07:30:00.001-07:00

As you all know, before President Obama became the most powerful person on the Earth his most significant endeavor came as a community organizer in Chicago, where he worked to get poor folks organized into a larger voting bloc.

Uh-oh...

As we look at the "Occupy America" demonstrations now taking place in cities all over the country we can now clearly say that Mr. Obama is the all-time greatest community organizer in our nation's history.

I thought Thomas Paine, with his book Common Sense was huge, but Mr. Obama's campaign - which could be entitled Common Nonsense is even more significant.

I have told people for years that America will be finished off if (a) the bums out there ever realize that their vote counts the same as Bill Gates, (b) realize that bums outnumber productive people like Mr. Gates and (c) get organized into a mob with voter registration cards.

Occupy America is just that and Mr. Obama is responsible for it. He has, since 2008 whipped up the masses of below-average Americans into a frenzy of hatred towards those of us who are trying to serve our fellow man in return for a return on our hard work. He has made the rich (i.e. the really, really productive people) the enemy and has convinced the people you know to be lazy, stupid and disinterested in obtaining an honest living that they are all victims of Starbucks, General Electric and Toys 'R' Us executives.

Now the bums are organized, angry and literate enough to use all of that time on their hands to make signs that say, "Save trees, burn the rich", "Arrest the 1%" and "Down with Capitalism" to name a few.

To those of you out there who think this is going to go away soon, you should recall the year 1917. The leaders of Russia did not take the rise of Communism seriously either. Oops. This is only the beginning of a revolution that will play out in the streets and eventually, the voting booth.

I think I will open up my gun cases tonight to make sure my guns are in good working order....

Rise of the Planet of the Hyenas

2011-10-12T09:42:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago I ventured out to a place I rarely go (a movie theater) to watch, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". When I was a kid back in the 70's I loved the Planet of the Apes movies and actually entertained the thought that something like this could happen some day.

Now that I am grown up I now realize that it is not likely that apes will take over the Earth. After all, the apes simply wanted liberty from the tyranny being imposed by humans.

What is far more likely to occur this century is for the hyenas - in human form - to take over the planet.

If you have ever watched a nature show where the lives and habits of hyenas are depicted you will notice that hyenas always lie around in the grass or under a shady tree waiting for hard-working lions or cheetahs to productively hunt down and kill some other animal. After the lion or cheetah has finished the hard work, the hyenas move in as a group, gang up on the individual that killed the antelope, chase them away and eat, without working, the meal that some other animal originally acquired.

Look around America today (and Greece, and England and more..) at all of these "Occupy America" protests. What you will see, if you look very closely, is a bunch of hyenas demanding to take away the productive efforts of the rest of us.

It could be argued that if Steve Jobs had been a cheetah he would have been one of the fastest, most agile cats on the plains of Africa. He would have had the best food and strongest skill set. As a human, his skill set meant thousands upon thousands of jobs for other people around the planet, incredible devices (that many of the protesters are using today) for the rest of us human beings and riches for himself.

For this, the hyenas line up and demand to take what he created without ever inventing anything of any use to anyone.

The Irony of Idiocy

2011-09-30T06:24:00.000-07:00

As this is being written, anti-capitalism protests are taking place in New York City. The September 30, 2011 Orlando Sentinel reported that "Zuccotti Park is festooned with placards and anti-Wall Street slogans. People sleep wrapped in blankets or sleeping bags, some with donated mattresses. There is a makeshift kitchen and library, and celebrities like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon have stopped by to show support."

I was just wondering where the blankets, sleeping bags, mattresses, food for the makeshift kitchens, kitchen supplies, books for the library, pens for the placards and the placards came from? Could it possibly be that all of the supplies the protestors are using - including the clothes they are wearing - came from some capitalist seeking the very profit they despise? Is it possible that Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon rely on movie-making equipment that was created by those who would desire monetary gain?

Hmmmm....

Warren Buffett..

2011-09-20T10:32:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration is now setting tax policy based on Warren Buffett's belief that he does not pay enough in income taxes. Lovely. If Warren Buffett is undertaxed he can stop claiming the deductions that have lowered his effective tax rate and he can look at line 75 of his tax return that allows him to send in extra money if he wants to.

Mr. Buffett claims he and other millionaires do not need the money. He could also give that money he does not need to charity or to a new business that is struggling to get started.

Mr. Buffett - and by extension, Barack Obama - should understand that different people derive different 'utility' from each dollar earned. If Buffett has very little utility for his extra dollars that does not mean the millionaire next to him has the same utility for their dollars.

To impose, unilaterally, a new tax increase that presupposes all millionaires are the same and that all millionaires do not need the money and that all millionaires would not put their money to productive use is not only patently stupid but indicative of the fact that President Obama is economically ignorant on a scale we have not seen since FDR.

One Question...

2011-09-12T05:28:00.000-07:00

Are the citizens of the United States more free, less free or as free as we were 10 years ago? Your answer and comments are greatly appreciated.

Why I should be Commissioner of the NFL

2011-09-01T08:12:00.000-07:00

Finally, thankfully, the NFL season is upon us. After seven long months of golf, NASCAR, the NBA, the endless baseball season, tennis, debt ceiling debates and Casey Anthony, we can finally return, as Americans, to a sense of normalcy as we turn the page to that glorious month called September.

That said, I am increasingly displeased with the National Football League and the way it is run. As an old-school football fan there is much to complain about when examining todays game. Thus, I would like to offer up what I would do if the NFL owners decided to make me the next commissioner of the NFL.

1. Haircuts. Today's game looks like girls running around in shoulder pads. I would go to every training camp in July with a ruler and a pair of scissors. All hair 2" below the bottom of your helmet would be cut off. The removed hair would be bagged up, tagged and sold on eBay to raise money for what comes next....

2. Pink in October. Instead of letting the players look even more like girls by wearing pink during Breast Cancer Awareness Month I would take the proceeds from the haircut auction (Tom Brady's hair alone should raise enough money to cure breast cancer...) and put it towards this worthy goal. However, any player caught wearing pink in October would be fined and forced to watch 100 straight hours of Julia Roberts movies.

3. Cheerleaders. NONE, ZERO, ZIP. Football has no place for strippers on the sidelines. Only a handful of teams in the NFL (Steelers and Bears for example) do not allow cheerleaders to parade around. Under my rule there would be zero cheerleaders ever again so that we can maintain the integrity of the game.

4. Fan behavior. I no longer go to NFL games because getting beaten, shot at or cursed like I am a dog is something I am fond of. Some fans (Oakland, Miami) are the worst. Going to a Dolphins game is like sitting with 70,000 convicts who are on leave for the weekend - and that is being unfair to convicts. I have seen grandmothers drop the 'F'-bomb on their grandsons during games. My policy would be simple. All stadiums would have mixed martial arts fighters, bouncers, NAVY SEALS (retired) and assorted folks who are good with their fists and/or guns and/or bricks to patrol the stands looking and listening for drunks, bad language or pending physical confrontations. My security staff would beat senseless all fans who are suspected of any transgression that could not have been shown on a 1950s television program.

5. Kickoffs. The NFL has moved kickoffs to the 35-yard line to reduce the number of violent collisions and thus injuries by encouraging "touchbacks". Sissy stuff! The kickoff should be moved back the the 20-yard line with legal wedges like the old days.

6. Speaking of the old days. No longer would quarterbacks be given invisible dresses to wear. They are men, treat them like it. It would be legal to smash them - and other offensive players - like the 1970s. Helmet to helmet contact? Yes, that is called football.

7. Commercials. This is a game kids should be allowed to watch without commercials depicting murder, rape, robbery or porn.

8. Celebrations. Any endzone celebration would mean the loss of the touchdown and a 20 yard penalty. Any moron who dances around or beats his chest for "doing his job!!" by making a tackle or gaining seven yards on a slant pass would be penalized 20 yards and would be required to do pushups with John Madden standing on his back during halftime.

9. Uniforms. Knee pads must cover the knees. Pants cannot fit to make it appear you are nude. No players can wear gloves (use your hands, you sissy...) and helmets would have facemasks with one bar made out of balsa wood.

10. Super Bowl Sunday - back to the last Sunday in January, during the day with no halftime show other than the local high school band.

That is all. Enjoy the season.

Come on Irene, there is a Recession to end!

2011-08-26T15:24:00.001-07:00

It is about time we had a disaster (other than the election of President Obama) to celebrate. Hurricane Irene has got to be the Keynesian economists dream come true. Think about it. When President Obama announced the $862 billion stimulus bill in 2009 it came on the tailwinds of Larry Summers and other White House economists claiming that the bill would create a 'mulitplier effect' of 1.5. That is to say that for every $1 spent the GDP would rise by $1.50, leading to an estimated $1.3 trillion boost to the economy, a sound recovery and unemployment rates by 2011 of less than 7%. Go look it up for yourself. The Wall Street Journal is filled with valuable articles from that year that put forth the Keynesian plan to end the last recession and have us growing like gangbusters by now.

Oops. Here we are nearly in September of 2011 and all signs are pointing to a 'double-dip' recession. So much for Lord Keynes.

But wait! Now, riding to the rescue will be one of the great opportunities to test another part of the Keynesian orthodoxy - that is that destruction leads to growth when government spends money to fix, among other things.....broken windows.

You remember this, don't you? During WWII Keynes said that, "If expenditure on armaments leads to economic progress, a grand experiment has begun...." What he meant, of course, was that war is good for the economy to the extent that militarism, destruction and rebuilding equates to future government outlays that will boost the economy.

This is why every Keynesian worth his or her salt has to be praying (if they pray) that Irene does not deviate from the path that has it going through Washington, D.C., New York and Boston. Imagine - 60 million residents, fully one-fifth of the nation - lives in this corridor. If we (Keynesian-speaking) can have say, $40 billion in damage, ruined vacations, injured humans and more, then the hospital bills, clean up and post-hurricane rebuilding will help this enormously important region grow by more than the $40 billion in damage - assuming government takes an active role, in all of its wisdom, in channeling tax dollars to non-PORK projects.

As an Austrian economist and follower of folks like Bastiat, I would gladly entertain any Keynesian out there willing to admit that they are hoping for the worst outcome of Irene so that we can get the "best" government has to offer.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Taking a break from not doing much...

2011-07-16T19:52:00.000-07:00

Before I take the rest of the summer off I thought I would leave you with a few thoughts. I realize I have not been faithful in blogging as often as the Tweeting/Facebooking/Texting crowd is used to but I have a good reason - apathy with a little bit of indifference mixed in...

Anyway, we have been told that our government will default on its debt obligations on August 2nd unless the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling is raised. It is pretty basic stuff. For every $1 the government spends it has to borrow about 40 cents. So, on August 2nd the government will have 60 cents in tax dollars but will have "promised" another 40 cents in spending for interest on the debt, welfare, the military and so forth. Someone on August 2nd will have to be told, "No money for you." The Bush-type Republicans are willing to work with Mr. Obama to raise the ceiling, keep spending and allow for some minor revenue adjustments primarily from repealing a few tax deductions here and there. The Tea Party people do not want any compromise that comes with tax hikes or without massive Paul Ryan-type spending cuts. Of course the liberals want to save every program, add new ones and soak small businesses (70% of which are in the $250,000 in income per year crowd) for more money.

I hope our government defaults on August 2nd. If it results in Greek-style riots so be it. I want to see real spending cuts and massive crackdowns on the people who make up the welfare class. Do you realize that in 1983 around 29% of the American people received welfare of some sort? Did you know that over 44% get your money today? 47% of the American people do not pay income taxes anymore. Once we get to 51% receiving the property of other people and 51% not paying anything to the treasury it is all over for our country. Better to see shocking acknowledgment of impending bankruptcy as the clock strikes 12:00 on August 2nd than to see the real pain of gradualism that will come from band-aid solutions that completely destroys our economy and our republic 20 or so years from now. I say that Rome can and should burn to the ground now - and rebuilt with fiscal austerity and limited government. If we let Rome smolder until the Baby-Boomers and growing welfare class have pushed us past the point of no return then we will never turn things around.

Second thought.... I am very interested in the candidacy of Michelle Bachmann. I think she understands the case for real liberty. Even with some missteps in her campaign she could be the candidate to pose a great challenge to President Obama. How is Mitt Romney going to debate Obama? He started forced health care purchasing in Taxachusetts. He has no leg to stand on.

Third thought... President Obama last week said that unemployment benefits are a boost to the economy because it helps people demand the goods and services our businesses produce. Yes, he said it. So, if we gave the people who make up our 9.2% unemployment rate $100,000 per day, wouldn't that, under his logic, boost aggregate demand enough to end the sluggish recovery and help our nation's economy soar?

Speaking of the unemployment rate, get used to it being high for a long, long time. Yes, uncertainty over the cost of Obamacare; his push for tax hikes in 2013; bloated debt and rising regulations have all created a poor environment from which businesses can hire people. But, the bigger issue is this. The last recession has created massive structual changes, along with ongoing uncertainty that has led many businesses to downsize permanently. Many firms are doing more and more with fewer people and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I would expect unemployment in excess of 7 - 8% for the rest of this decade. This is what Western Europe has been forced to accept. Our march towards the socialism that destroyed much of Europe, along with rising structural unemployment will mean that the days of 4% unemployment may well be over.

Speaking of Europe, I have been shocked and am quite proud that the government of my country of birth - Germany - has pushed for cuts in government spending, tax and regulatory reform and has refused to engage in Keynesian nonsense for the past two years. This has lead to a falling unemployment and the fastest economic growth in Europe. The Germans are now lecturing us on how to move towards Hayek.

One more thing - and this is the good news. Notice that unemployment is rising at the same time more and more businesses are announcing upcoming price hikes to pay for rising commodity prices and other input costs impacted by regulations, health-care mandates and more. This is called stagflation. The last time we had the worst of both worlds was in 1979-80. Stagflation ended the FDR/Lyndon Johnson/Jimmy Carter era and ushered in Reaganomics. Let's hope that stagflation - as bad as it is - will be with us long enough to end the great Hope and Change experiment or at least forces Mr. Obama to act like Bill Clinton was forced to act in his second term (economically, not morally).

Enjoy the rest of your summer. That is all for now...

Minnesota needs to get meaner (and so do the rest of us)

2011-07-02T19:25:00.000-07:00

In case you missed it, the state of Minnesota closed all state parks and stopped all other non-essential functions as the governor and state legislature failed to reach a budget agreement by the new fiscal year (July 1st).

Allow me to say a few things here.

First, as many of you know, I consider Minnesota my second home. I try to get away to the Land of 10,000 lakes as much as I can with my family. This is a state filled with natural beauty, quiet and people who are actually enjoyable to be around. Now, my plans for this summer have potentially been thwarted by politicians who would rather preserve the welfare state than have state parks.

This is the problem. I - and other people - work hard for the money I earn. I like to spend part of that money on vacation. I like to vacation in many of the parks in Minnesota. Now I can't. At the same time, people in Minnesota who do not work hard - or at all - will still receive welfare checks, housing assistance, medical assistance and more on my back and the backs of my fellow sufferers. The bums get paid, the productive people get closed camp grounds.

Do you see the bigger picture here? Flash forward 20 years from now. The baby boomers -in Minnesota, Florida and the other 48 states - will get their money, along with the younger welfare cases, while the rest of us will be expected to work, and pay, for their sloth. Those of us who work for a living rather than vote for a living will probably see other cuts in the services we pay for so that more and more Americans can feed at the public trough.

It is time for this country and the 50 states in it, to get mean. What would that look like? It would look like a line drawn in the sand by taxpayers who tell politicians that we will not continue to pay for the comforts of those who are being insulated from economic natural selection. If more and more states, along with the federal government, refused to expand the welfare state we would first see rational geographic mobility to the states that still pay handsomely for laziness. As those states become fewer in number we would see fewer births, less immigration (by immigrants who have learned about our welfare offices) and more people striving to take care of their own affairs.

In the long run we might even see places like France become the destination of choice for Americans who have run out of welfare havens to hide in.

I say good riddance - and open the camp grounds I am willing to pay for!

Vancouver...

2011-06-18T18:47:00.000-07:00

I love Canada. I love the Canadian people and I love Vancouver, British Columbia.

I don't love watching "people" with no regard for private property rights, the right to life or liberty engage in the type of behavior we saw a few days ago.

As someone who has spent a great deal of time in and around this city I want to be the first to say that you cannot find nicer, more civilized people perhaps anywhere in the world. If you spend any time in Western Canada you will not be able to help falling in love with the place.

It needs to stay that way and I have a suggestion.

The police - should this happen again - need to stop fooling around with tear gas, batons, shields and bullhorns.

All it would take is for one or two or twelve of these unemployed losers who are setting fire to cars or smashing windows to be shot dead right where they are lighting the match and you would see a drastic change in the cost-benefit calculation of rioters.

That's right. I am suggesting that the police start shooting rioters to stop rioting.

It is highly unlikely that any of these rioters - had they been finished off - would have been terribly missed by the rest of the planets inhabitants. It is highly likely that many more lives could be saved and millions in property spared if law enforcement could use deadly force in protection of people and property after the next sporting event ends.

Things that should be illegal

2011-06-15T06:28:00.000-07:00

As a Libertarian with anarchist sympathies I must always tread carefully when suggesting government intrusion into our lives. Afterall, government is force and force ultimately gets used for evil. However, there are some missed spots in our society where I would welcome the use of force to bring out greater civility, common sense and economic efficiency. So here is my list of what ought to be curbed, altered or stopped by the use of the law.

1. Universal voting rights. It should be illegal for people to be allowed to vote just because they are 18 and are non-felons. The new law would make it legal to vote once you can cite the 27 grievances the Founders listed in the Declaration of Independence; explain, with at least 90% accuracy the original intent of the Founders as declared in our Constitution and pass with a grade of at least 80% an economics exam the covers the basics of cost-benefit analysis, the various economic systems and the workings of supply and demand. If this means that only 419 Americans would be allowed to vote in the next election so be it.

2. Public education. Taking money from one person (who might be childless) to give it to someone else that that the party receiving the forced aid can send their kids to a government school is not only receipt of stolen goods but a recipe for a stupid nation. Along with abolishing taxpayer-financed education would come the elimination of school districts. All education should be privately run and a parent living in Orlando should be allowed to drive their kid to Memphis every day if they want to. The poor would no go without an education any more than they go without food, shoes or toothpaste. The market would find a way to cheaply sell a better product than the garbage schools we have now.

3. Train horns on automobiles. Every time I am driving down the road and hear one of these go off I almost wreck my car. Trucks are not trains and should not sound like them. These rednecks who must announce their existence to the world with train horns are creating a negative externality that poses a hazard to the rest of us. They should be forced to have horns that go "toot toot".

4. Athletes wearing pink. O.K., I am hoping breast cancer is eliminated some day just like everyone else. But, having football players in particular and other athletes in general wearing pink socks and wristbands or swinging pink bats is absurd and only accelerates the sissification of America. The new law would allow female athletes to wear pink. Men would be stoned with blue rocks if they do so.

5. Using the phrase, "At the end of the day...." If I hear this one more time I am going to take a pink train horn and smash the offending person in the head. How in the name of God's green Earth can people keep using this maddening phrase in every paragraph?? "So and so is facing a tough decision about blah, blah, blah, but at the end of the day he has to...." New law: $1 tax for every time this phrase gets used. Use the money to pay China to slow down the rate at which her citizens take away the math and science jobs in America.

6. The word "like". There should be a law stating that if you use the word "like" inappropriately (for example, "My professor told me to read 2 pages to get ready for the next class, and I was like, you know, texting at the time so I did not hear him.") you would pay a $5 tax. This should be enough to pay off the Obama/Bush debt in about a week and a half. All remaining money would be used to create offsetting cuts in income taxes.

7. Back to cars for a moment. It should be illegal for cars driven by non-police officers to be made to look like unmarked cars. You know what mean - the extra spot light mounted near the driver's window, no hubcaps and plain white or black in color. For those of us who need to get to where we are going by fudging on the speed limit and squeezing yellow lights we don't need fake cops behind us preventing us from productively arriving at our destinations.

8. Light beer. Even women should not drink light beer and no man should. How can we expect to defend our nation from future attacks if we drink light beer while wearing pink wristbands?

9. Texting. I do not mean texting while driving. I mean texting. To do that I want the texting devices banned to. That means no cell phones. But cell phones are mutations of regular phones so those need to go to. New law: Smoke signals. That would reduce all human contact to only the most important interactions. Everything else is overrated and needs to go away.

10. Lastly, there should be a law that requires all environmentalists to walk everywhere they go without the use of any clothing except for fig leaves and/or the bark from dead trees. The first law of Thermodynamics states that energy is neither created or destroyed. This means all energy creates some form of pollution or negative environmental consequences. Therefore, to avoid being hypocrites, all "Green people" should be banned from using energy. That not only means walking around with oak bark underwear and dried leaf shoes but it also means eating only dirt, never using a light bulb and never again using fuel-powered boats to chase whaling ships. They could swim out to the ships and throw seaweed at the offenders. That would be fine.

I welcome any suggestions to my list. As you can see, I am bored today.

Etc.

2011-05-23T05:29:00.001-07:00

One of my liberal colleagues at Valencia emailed to fuss about my infrequent posts over the past couple of months. He almost suggested that I am lazy. Being called lazy by an Obama-supporter is like being called stupid by Donald Trump (more on him later...) so I thought I should post something today, even though I would rather sit on my couch and stare out the window.

First, is the War on Terror over now? I was just wondering because, after all, we did finally kill the economist who started all of this. No, I do not mean Milton Friedman.

As many of you know, Osama had a degree in economics and used it very, very well. Mark Zandi - one of the more reputable economists in America - has estimated that the full cost of September 11th - counting the destruction, the wars, the inflated interest payments from the accelerated debt obligations and the opportunity cost of the War on Terror - is around $2.5 trillion over the last ten years.

If someone came to Osama an hour before he was shot and said, "Was your investment of time, money and capital worth it?" he would have said, "Let's see....we spent a few hundred million dollars to bring down the Twin Towers, kill 3,000 people that day - and thousands of American troops since then; led our enemy into two wars - one of which (Iraq) largely destroyed America's credibility around the globe and cost upwards of $1 trillion; led to the signing of the Patriot Act which basically caused the American people to turn their government against their liberties; led to a massive reallocation of tax dollars away from productive economic pursuits (like not taxing the money away to begin with); helped cause massive debt which will be repaid with even higher taxes in the future; caused incredible delays in airports while watching people who barely graduated from high school grope 103 year old - and 3 year old - potential terrorists; all while helping to recruit more people into this Jihad than we had on September 10, 2001. "Yes, as an economist, I would say our resources were allocated in an efficient manner."

Oh, for you Republicans out there who would say, "But we have not been attacked since!" I would argue this: Why would they need to attack us again? One attack did enough damage to last two decades or more. In one area alone - America's perception of the tradeoff between liberty and security - the damage was enough to lead many people to conclude that Osama won.

Now to Donald Trump. As of a few weeks ago he was leading potential Republican candidates for President with 16% support. I have always wondered if post-Reagan Republicans were stupid. Now, I am sure of it. Add it up folks.... DONALD TRUMP + SARAH PALIN + MITT (I believe in national health care too) ROMNEY + NEWT ( I believe in government subsidized ethanol and don't like Paul Ryan) GINGRICH = Barack Obama needing to spend around $3.17 to win in 2012. For you Republicans who keep harping on where President Obama was born, I am sorry that Mr. Trump has left the building. Can I, as a Libertarian, ask you people a question? Do you know how dumb you are? I mean, do you really care if he was born in Hawaii, Indonesia or on Mars? Do you think he is going to resign after admitting he was born in some remote village in Kenya? Wouldn't it make more sense to find a candidate who actually focused on something like, you know, our bankrupt country as their key issue rather than some idiotic 'Birther' question?

I MIGHT EVEN VOTE FOR OBAMA IF THIS IS THE BEST YOUR PARTY CAN DO!

Not really - I will vote for Ron Paul again. After all, I keep sending him money that he refuses to use to run an effective campaign with, so I might as well vote for him to at least feel like I am getting a little return on my investment - all while waiting for the Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio ticket in 2016.

Until 2016 I think I will go back to what I wanted to do this morning in the first place - stare out of my window and wonder why people believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, when one study of our collective brains would prove that Americans are devolving as a species. If I were a monkey I would be insulted to be compared to American humans with voter registration cards.

Why I do not expect to live a long life...

2011-04-29T06:06:00.000-07:00

I am grading final exams this week. The second essay question on my macroeconomics final exam reads: "What caused The Great Depression? Fully explain the Keynesian solution for this problem."

Here is an answer I just read. It has not been edited.

"The Great depression was caused by World War II and the major increase on taxes to be able to afford it. The was a low unemployment rate during that time mainly becauses businesses couldn't afford to pay people to work. their are always consequences to decisions the Gov't make. Keynesian would have suggested that we bring the Gov't into this and let them help. Put caps on whatever he wanted to make sure it was at a price the people could afford. Never mind the fact that there will be major shortages and companies will probably collapse. This approach would not be smart at all; I may be helpful to the people, but only temporarily because once their is a shortage either the prices are going to increase massively or the business would close."

Folks, it is answers like this that are all too common in my classes today. With every passing semester of reading this __________ I age more rapidly. At this pace I think there is a reasonable chance that I will die - while grading exams - sometime in the next semester or two.

At my funeral, please tell people that I tried to help.

Thank you. Now, back to my grading...

POLICE STATE 2011: Government Bureaucrats Steal Basketball Hoops In Dela...

2011-04-04T16:57:00.000-07:00

Your thoughts?

2011-03-16T05:54:00.000-07:00

The U.S. has no Business in Libya

2011-03-08T07:03:00.000-08:00

Here we go again....

Now that a Middle-East dictator has finally decided to fight back against those who seek to change their government, the United States is once again taking up the moronic position of being the "Great Interferer" in the soverign affairs of another nation.

It seems we will never learn. Pick your police action in this week's survey as the dumbest one we have ever pursued. The list is a long one and it never goes well.

It does not matter what the price of oil rises to or how many Libyan protestors die in their revolt. This is THEIR revolt. The only thing the U.S. can possibly gain for creating 'No-fly' zones, or from bombing runways or from aiding the revolutionary forces in any way is to once again prove to the world that we arrogantly reserve the right to fix things for other nations - especially if gas prices rise above $3.50 while we are in the process of not fixing other nations.

If the Libyans want to recruit Americans to fight along side them, that is fine. If they want to buy guns from us, that is great - we have plenty. If they want us to verbally support their cause, Amen to that to. But, not one dime, or one American drop of blood needs to be spent or shed during this uprising.

Random musings concerning the world around us...

2011-02-27T16:09:00.001-08:00

My apologies for being "out of the loop" for more than two months. I have been re-writing my textbooks and, as you might imagine, there has been a great deal to write about since the last editions came out two weeks before Mr. Obama took office.

I thought I would use this posting to share some thoughts on a few issues that have been in the news lately.

First, have you noticed that no matter what happens to prices liberals are not happy? When gas prices increased to over $4 per gallon in the summer of 2008, liberals took to the airwaves to denounce the greed of 'Big Oil' and chronicled the meteoric rise in the profits of BP, Exxon-Mobil and the rest of the den of thieves. Then, when prices fell to less than $2 per gallon in 2009, liberals cried that lower prices would cause us to go back to gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, which would cause more global warming.

When housing prices skyrocketed a few years ago, NBC, CBC, ABC and the left-leaning newspapers cried about the poor and middle class families that were priced out of the market. When home prices collapsed they cried about the poor and middle class families that could not afford to stay in the homes they should not have bought to begin with.

Please ask your friendly neighborhood liberal exactly what they want when it comes to the invisible hand then let me know what they say.

Now to Egypt. Please calm down with all the talk that this is July 4, 1776 for the Middle East. Egypt ranks 96th in economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation's annual rankings. Egypt has 35% of its labor force working for the government. This percentage has artifically fueled public wages to well above what the private sector in Egypt can pay. Therefore, potential businesses are crowded out of the labor market and unemployment - especially for college graduates - is rampant. Unless Egypt fixes that, along with corruption, lack of tranparency in regulations and taxes and other growth-killing rules we will simply see one lousy dictator replaced with another one. But.....just in case I am wrong, please don't gripe about rising gas prices stemming from the growing rebellions. Remember, the price of tea increased when the colonists began fighting against our king.

Heading west to Wisconsin, bravo for the governor of the Badger state. It is time for public sector unions to die. Period. There was once a good reason for private sector unions. Long ago working conditions were horrible for millions of American workers. If you were treated badly, tough - it was you against the company. Unions were a natural reaction to corporate abuse and greed. Then, decades later, JFK legally recognized public unions and it has been the bullet train to bankruptcy for the states ever since. It is simply ludicrous that teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers received the budget-busting European-style retirement benefits that they enjoy. It is time to do away with $100,000 -plus pensions, double-dipping and the other practices that will kill our states one by one. As a 20 year veteran of Florida's retirement system I have been asked to contribute exactly zero pennies towards my retirement fund. Our new governor wants me to kick in 5% of my annual pay to help towards my retirement. My reaction? "What took you so long..."

Now to the National Football League. The billionaire owners want the players to play 18 games and take a nearly 20% pay cut while imposing a rookie wage scale. The millionaire players want to keep the status quo. The owners will get their t.v. money even if there is no season. The players spend money like drunk 2 year old children in a candy store. Kiss the 2011 season goodbye and enjoy college football next year. I should mention, as a Miami Dolphins fan since 1975 (translation - I have never seen them win the Super Bowl), it gives me great pleasure knowing that I will be put out of my misery this fall.

Let's go over to the White House for a moment. President Barack Clinton is finally getting it. He signed off on keeping the Bush tax cuts and lowered our payroll tax from 6.2 to 4.2% for this year. Thank you, Ronald Obama. It is about time you took a look at the playbook from Clinton's last 6 years. If you keep it up, you might be able to beat Sarah, "I have no ideas, but I am kinda cute" Palin, or 109 year old Ron Paul.

I almost forgot the upcoming baseball season. Red Sox over Phillies in 7 games. New York Yankees (Satan's team) fails to make the playoffs.

O.K., that is enough for now. I hope you all are doing well. If you are not, make sure you blame it on global warming.

Once Again, He was right...

2010-12-14T13:47:00.000-08:00

During his farewell address to the American people, Ronald Reagan, ever the humble optimist, spoke of America as being a shining city on a hill, a beacon of sorts that would set an example for freedom-loving people from every corner of the world. Mr. Reagan had a good reason to speak of our nation in such glowing and confident terms. In the eight short years he was in office, our nation accomplished more economically and internationally for the cause of liberty than at any time since World War II. 19 million new jobs, falling inflation and interest rates, record economic growth, a doubling of federal revenues and the vanquishing of the Soviet Union all happened as a direct result of his view that liberty works best for our people, and all people.

Mr. Reagan would have never believed that in less than 20 years since he left office the United States would be slouching towards the goal of becoming Western Europe - debt-ridden with quasi-nationalization of key industries (see cars, student loans, banking, health care...), exploding social welfare spending, rising levels of regulations and the threat of punitive tax rates on the more productive people among us.

I have said many times in recent years that America is no longer Reagan's America but one where the Reagan years are to be looked at as a brief aberration as we stumble into the same ditch as the Romans. I have not shared in his optimism. I have not believed my own statements that we must have hope because we are the only nation whose reset button has the word "liberty" on it. I tell my students, and have prepared to tell my kids, that our country still has time to change its mind and turn this economic Titanic around. Yet, many times I think I say this only because I do not want to feel guilty for bringing children into a world where they will be poorer than I, only by virtue of being born while adult socialists made plans on how to ruin their chance for success.

Yet, once again, I am proven wrong and Reagan, the great sage is proven right. There are reasons to be hopeful even when all looks bleak.

Of course, one reason could be the 63 seats that the Republicans won in November promising to not act like a Bush Republican. Another could be found in Mr. Obama recently pushing for greater free trade with South Korea despite protests from unions, environmentalists and other groups who do not want to compete in the global economy. It is also somewhat encouraging to see Mr. Obama cave in on his promise to force tax rates up on high achievers. The coming two year extension of the Bush tax cuts, combined with the payroll tax cut, even if temporary, are also a temporary movement away from the Hope and Change idiocy that has been so pervasive in our country.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the decision of Judge Henry Hudson, who just yesterday ruled that Mr. Obama's health care legislation requiring all of us to engage in commerce - by force - is unconstitutional. We may now see the implosion of the criminally suffocating health care legislation that promised to hurt businesses and individuals everywhere.

Somewhere, Mr. Reagan is probably smiling that sly smile of his and saying, "I wonder why people were so frantic over the past couple of years. Don't they know that Americans always change their minds when they come to believe that government is the problem, rather than the solution to what ails us?"

Bit by bit perhaps his reason for optimism is being woven back into the fabric of what makes our nation unique. I for one plan to do more sewing in the near future. After all, if Mr. Reagan could have hope when times suggested there should be none, the least I can do is have hope when current times suggest there is little.

Texting makes you Dumb

2010-10-26T10:49:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, researchers that examine the number of hours Americans spend on "social media" - defined as texting, Facebooking and other forms of entertainment - found that the average teen spends over 50 hours per week on such activities.

This week I am grading my first exam of the semester. This week is a lot like recent semesters in that the vast majority of my students are failing my test. Moreover, the failing grades I get these days are much lower than in past years. 15-20 years ago (when my tests were even harder than today) I would have maybe six or seven grades of 'F', with the average 'F' being in the 50s. Today, out of a class of 50 students I routinely have 30 fail with grades in the teens and twenties being the norm.

When I began my life as a professor in 1991 there was no such thing as the cell phone (unless you were Gordan Gekko in Wall Street), the internet or any other major distraction that you could hold in your hand. Television was about it and even then we did not have 32 billion channels to mindlessly navigate through.

My students of 2010 are, extremely intellectually challenged. Not all, but most. They are dumb in large part because they do not understand the concept of opportunity cost. Every hour spent texting, Tweeting, Facebooking, Youtubing or whatever else they do is an hour than cannot read their economics book - or any other book for that matter.

This leads to poor, text-like answers, horrible reasoning skills and a total inability to form questions that rise above caveman-like grunting.

Yes, I realize that the public schools are horrible; parents don't parent and global warming makes it too hot to focus on anything for very long (kidding here), but I am convinced that the real culprit is the idiotic use of computers and cell phones.

Meanwhile, students in China, India and Eastern Europe are continuing to dominate in math and science while America now ranks last and near last, respectively among OECD nations in each category.

One day we will look back at this century and realize that part of the demise of America was found in the palm of our hand.

How to waste $100 million...

2010-09-25T07:06:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, announced that he was going to donate $100 million to help improve the public schools in Newark, New Jersey.

He would have been better off if he would have announced a series of 100 prizes worth $1 million to those individuals who come up with the best ideas for improving Facebook. Or, he could have spent the $100 million hiring more employees to monitor abuses of the Facebook service. Or, he could have thrown $100 million out of the window of his moving vehicle and assumed the people who picked it up would put it back into the economy.

Yet he chose to do one of the dumbest things a human being could do with $100 or $100 million.

Will $100 million:

a. Cause lousy parents in Newark to suddenly get involved in their childs' education or help them with homework or encourage them to read to their kids?
b. Cause poorly qualified teachers to magically become experts in their field of study?
c. Cause the teachers union in Newark to lose the power to protect bad teachers?
d. Cause tenure to go away in Newark?
e. Cause Newark to open up all school districts to competition, allowing any kid to go to any school he or she desires?
f. Cause the schools to adopt 1950s era punishment for unruly, disrespectful students?
g. Cause the IQ of the students in Newark to increase?

I wish Mr. Zuckerberg would reconsider. All he has accomplished is a net reduction of his wealth with nothing to show for it.

Thoughts on Quran burning and Mosque building

2010-09-13T04:57:00.000-07:00

If liberty is truly valuable to you then you must allow others to use their liberty to do things that you might find offensive - so long at their behavior does not violate the rights of others.

This silly pastor in Gainesville has as much right to do something stupid as Muslims in New York have the right to do something that might be offensive.

It really does not matter what we think about a mosque being built in the shadow of 'Ground Zero'. The people who lost their lives nine years ago do not have an opinion on the matter any more than those who are upset about the mosque have any right to use government to stop its construction. If the folks who are proposing this building have paid for the land, labor and materials to build it, then so be it. That is the end of the story....IF....we truly believe in the idea of liberty. To force them to go somewhere else would simply show that Americans are hypocrites and that all that we say we have been fighting against the last nine years would be for naught.

I would be upset if I saw some nut burning the Bible in Iran - or Illinois. Yet, I only have an interest in seeing the Bible treated with respect, not a right to see it treated with respect.

If a book gets burned in America, so be it. So long as the pastor did not steal the matches or force someone else to assist him, we, as liberty-lovers are obligated to stand back, shake our heads over the foolishness of the man, and then let him proceed.

I would hope that Muslims and Christians living in America would see these events as an opportunity to do what we are supposed to do - leave each other alone.

Call 911....then wait 35 minutes....

2010-08-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

This afternoon I was in my home when I happened to look out of my window and see a young teenaged girl walking along the side of my house. I hurried outside and found her barefoot and crying. When I asked her what was wrong she told me that she had been beaten by a relative at her home. I asked her if she wanted me to call the police and she said yes.

While she was in my house being consoled by my wife I dialed 911 and reported what had happened. The 15-year old girl told the dispatcher where the incident took place and I gave the authorities my address. 10 minutes went by and no one appeared.

I saw a police officer drive by, attempted to wave him down only to have him go on by.

I called 911 again to find out what was going on. They had not processed the last call yet but said that it would be soon.

Another officer went by. Again, I stood in my driveway, waving my arms. No response.

I called the non-emergency number for our local police department. I got a recording telling me to call the county. I did. The county gave me many options, none of which included talking to a human being.

After 30 minutes I drove the one-tenth of a mile that I live from my town's police department (I can actually see the department from my driveway..) No one was in the police department and the door was locked. A phone with instructions to dial 911 was on the outside of the building.

I dialed 911 for the third time and was told that the last calls were in the system, it was a busy day for the police and someone would arrive soon.

I drove home and after more than 35 minutes an officer finally appeared, told me he had been given the wrong address and then, finally, proceeded to assist this girl who had to wait more than a half hour for the government to do its job in a manner that our taxes call for.

Thank God she was not in my yard bleeding from a gunshot wound...

Is the Economy a Machine or an Ecosystem?

2010-07-26T16:02:00.000-07:00

Much of what is missing from the current debate over economic policy is a fundamental question over what our nation's economy most closely resembles - a sophisticated machine that can be fine tuned by special people with IQ's several standard deviations greater than us common folk, or an ecosystem that selects the most relatively fit participants for success, while punishing poor decision makers with lower standards of living.

If our economy resembles a machine, then the Keynesians in Washington are correct that managed health care; near $1 trillion stimulus packages; targeted subsidies and bailouts; quasi-ownership of banking and automotive concerns; green initiatives and much more can be successfully carried out by elected officials whom we entrusted in the voting booth. Let's face it, we have been told over and over again that under the era of deregulation (presumably referring to Reagan, Clinton & Bush), led to the chaos that destroyed the American economy and, deservedly, our faith in capitalism. Unfettered capitalism, we have been told must be restrained by intelligent, diligent political officials and judges so that we can all be spared the ravages of another Great Depression.

On the other hand, what if an economy is not unlike the wilderness and the ecosystem that exists in the wilderness? Think about this proposition for a moment. Out in the wilds of nature, the regulating forces that guide the "decisions" of plants and animals is simply the extent to which the ecosystem selects for success, or failure, the behavior of its participants. Life is a random walk where sometimes there is just enough rain, food, sunlight and lack of disease to allow living beings that are best suited for current ecological circumstances to thrive. Other times, naturally occuring ecological "recessions", i.e. drought, floods, plagues, etc. cause participants that are ill-suited for the conditions that exist to face a greater probability of struggling, or even dying.

The "market" for resources is unregulated but ultimately faces regulation. The regulation in this case stems from diverse life forms using only those resources needed to maximize chances for survival. There is also no punishment imposed for those living things that have the best genes, the greatest strength, or the luckiest location at any given time.

Harsh as it may sound, what if we simply allowed our economy to copy what is "natural" to our condition? Human beings have a greater capacity to work together, a greater desire to share wealth and a deeper understanding of how to organize resources than animals and plants do. Government, one could argue, imposes unnatural regulations, taxes and laws that inhibit human being from maximizing the opportunities our economy (our ecosystem) has presented to us. Whether it is progressive individual and corporate income taxes; crony capitalism for businesses with the best lobbyists, but not the best products; or welfare and health care benefits for voters who would rather use a ballot to get money than a job to do the same, the examples are endless where unnatural, and unproductive decisions are rewarded all because government can use force.

I would like to suggest that the more we encourage our fellow man to look to nature rather than government for guidance on how to structure economic policy the better off we will be in the long run. This would not mean the absence of help for the down-trodden. Far from it. What it would mean is that in the future, participants in our biological economy would not build nests that they cannot afford; would not eat enough food to become a strain to their neighbors' wallet and would not use their businesses to invest in resources that are too risky.

Remember, if we think our economy is a machine, it means that in the long run we must face a reality where more and more experts get to design and control the part of the machine that each of us helps support. I am not sure I want a future that the Soviet Union decided to leave behind.

Thoughts on the $20 billion Shakedown...

2010-06-21T10:18:00.001-07:00

In case you missed the last blog entry on this site, I am in favor of BP paying for the cleanup of the property that is owned by all and therefore owned by no one. This is the nature of common property - if one of the part owners/nonowners does something to ruin what the rest of us partly own/do not own then that party must bear the responsibility for the damage done to the rest of us. BP - as my brother pointed out via email - made a lot of bad decisions stemming in large part from poor management on the oil rig. BP, according to The Wall Street Journal relied on less expensive, and riskier technology to drill for oil in deeper waters. Whatever millions BP saved by going cheap and having bad management/crisis planning, it is now paying for - and then some. I am fine with that. If $20 billion is not enough, let it be $23 billion or $36 billion. Whatever. I, like you, want BP to fix the mess it helped create.

Now lets turn to another huge spill that threatens far more people than BP will ever hurt. This spill has caused trillions, yes, trillions of dollars in damages and will have a catastrophic impact on our children, grandchildren and their grandchildren.

This spill is the huge gusher of money that our federal government has blown through since...well, since FDR with an acceleration in the name of Bush Compassion/International Pre-emptive Conflict and Obama Socialism/Keynesian Fallacy Worshipping.

Tell me please - how do we sit here and cry for dead pelicans and turtles who are covered in BP oil, when our future human citizens are covered in debt? Why should I rejoice when BP's CEO is dragged before Congress for his tar and feathering when no one from Congress is dragged before us to explain the trillions wasted in concept wars, health care for all, endless welfare benefits, bailouts for Harvard MBAs who were too stupid to recall the phrase "boom and......bust" and on and on and on?

It is a pathetic joke that BP is held to scrutiny of one standard for ruining the Gulf of Mexico while our own government gets to ruin every state in the nation with no accountability whatsoever.

Someone please explain this paradox to me.

Some Rational thoughts on the BP Oil Spill

2010-06-04T06:58:00.001-07:00

I find myself in constant amazement at the stupidity of the American people. Just when I start thinking that maybe my fellow citizens deserve a little credit for having some common sense, another reason to have no faith in the economic intelligence of humans resurfaces.

To date, BP has lost over $1 billion as a result of this historically epic oil spill. Every second, BP officials can watch an underwater camera film profits gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. BP will end up spending far more on lawsuits, cleanup costs, new regulatory contraints on deepwater drilling and more. BP's reputation with consumers is tanking. Stockholders are fleeing. Bondholders are probably selling off in droves.

And yet, the American people think BP does not care about what is taking place. BP cares more than anyone! BP cares because it has the biggest reason (over 1 billion of them) to care. It is as if - when you listen to other people - that this evil corporation is somehow responding slowing and/or stupidly to the spill because it is, of course, an evil corporation that cares only about profits and stockholders. It is precisely because BP only cares about profits and stockholders that BP keeps trying to stop this spill.

Many will say that this is proof that deepwater drilling is too risky to continue or that BP and other companies should have had to take more precautions before they started drilling that deep. Nonsense.

First, the odds of something like this happening were - and still are - so low that it would not have made sense for BP to incur tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in added costs to drill relief wells at the same time the primary wells were being drilled. Think of it this way. We have a better chance of dying from a car wreck than an oil rig has of sinking. Should Ford build cars that look like tanks with several feet of protective steel, bomb-proof windows and bumpers that are 10 feet thick? That would save many more lives, right? What would cars then cost?

If all of the oil companies took into account every possible disaster and then incurred costs to prevent even the lowest probability events, you would have the pleasure of paying much more for gas than you do now. Then you would complain about $6 gas and the "excessive measures" that oil companies are wasting money on.

The reality of this spill is quite simple. BP engaged in rational engineering to provide us with fuel at the lowest possible cost. Government regulators (who failed over and over again to do their jobs) implicitly trusted that BP loved getting money for oil and would try not to spill any. When the lowest probability event actually happened we got a spill into the nation's common property that BP should now pay to clean up. It will be bad for the Gulf States for a long time. Billions, potentially in tourism and seafood revenue will be lost. That is part of the price of keeping gas around $2.50 per gallon.

If you want a full-proof method for keeping all oil out of the ocean, then ban all drilling offshore, pay your $6 per gallon and shut up about the high price of gas.

Why Libertarians are Losers...

2010-05-25T08:14:00.000-07:00

As an unapologetic Libertarian I would like to take a moment to point out what is wrong with the folks that make up the ranks of our nation's third largest political party.

I, like many of you, voted for Ron Paul in 2008. I like his son, Rand Paul, and find him to be a breath of fresh air whenever he speaks on the issues that are dear to my heart.

And yet, Mr. Paul is on the verge - assuming it is not already too late - of being relegated to a footnote in our political history. This would place him in the company of other Libertarians who seem to take pride in losing elections. After all, it takes a special person to really understand how smart we Libertarians are. We, and only we, know that government best serves us when it leaves our wallets and bodies alone. The Democrats understand liberty as it pertains to our rights to engage in social contracts. Republicans understand liberty as it pertains to our rights in economic contracts.

It takes a real smart person to understand the value of liberty in all contracts between consenting adults.

Yet, Libertarians are really, really dumb in at least one respect.

Rather than slowly pulling Republicans and Democrats in our direction by showing them the value of true freedom, we open our extremist-sounding mouths and blurt out inumerable offensive ideas that send voters running away.

Take Rand Paul's recent remarks that the government probably overstepped its bounds in the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Mr. Paul contended that private businesses should not have faced force desegregation of restaurants, hotels, etc.

Yes, I understand his point. No, I do not think I should have to let anyone in my home or car or other private areas of my life if I choose not to. The problem with what Mr. Paul said is twofold.

First, the voters are not Constitutionally astute enough to discern the broader meaning of his comments and therefore will think he is a racist.

Second, pragmatic Libertarianism might suggest that desegregation of businesses was a proper function of government. After all, black people in 1964 could have argued that they paid property taxes to maintain the sidewalks, roads, street lights, signs, sewers, police and fire protection for the local sandwich shop and therefore a sandwich shop that exists to sell food to the public should have to allow all members of the tax-paying public to peacefully enter and pay for a meal.

Liberty means "anything that is peaceful". A peaceful attempt to exchange private property in a business establishment seems to fit under that definition.

If Mr. Paul - and other Libertarians - want to start winning elections a strong dose of common-sense Libertarianism would help achieve that goal.

Until then, Libertarians will be confined to the wilderness where many of our best ideas our clouded by rhetoric that the voters find offensive or extremist.

A Hometown lesson on the failures of government

2010-05-19T06:32:00.000-07:00

I am asked from time to time if there are moments in my life I can point to that put me on a path to become a Libertarian economist who blames government for everything that ails the planet. While there is a long list - probably dating back to my days in Kindergarten - one instance in particular helped shape my correct view that there is absolutely nothing government does as well as the private sector.

On May 19, 1990 - twenty years ago today - my boyhood home in Hugo, Oklahoma burned to the ground.

It was a beautiful home. It was built at the turn of the 20th century and totally refurbished by my grandfather during the 1940s. The exterior was all made of large stone. The interior was Colorado pine logs with wagon wheel chandaliers, a huge fire place and many other touches that made it a wonderful place to live in.

On the rare occasions when I visit my home town I always take my wife and kids down the end of Bluff Street. The kids especially enjoy running around in the big field that was next to my home. Where the home once was there is now nothing more than grass and a chain link fence that keeps people away from the low-income housing units that now sit in our former pasture.

The house would still be there if not for the failures of Hugo's government that night.

My brother started his new motorcycle near the window of my parents bedroom. When the engine started an explosion took place and flames shot through the open window and caught the curtains on fire. He immediately called the fire department. When they arrived and attempted to hook their hoses into the plug only 30 yards or so from our house, the fireplug did not respond. They rushed down the street to one over 150 yards away. It did not respond either.

Without access to water from the only two plugs in our area, all they - and my brother could do - was watch our home, and all of its contents, burn to the ground even though they got to our home when the fire was still contained to only part of the bedroom.

When an investigation was conducted as to why the plugs did not work it was discovered that the fire department had neglected to conduct routine maintenance (by flushing out the plugs) when it was supposed to. In fact, rather than coming out once every few months as the city required, it had been years since they had driven the five minutes it would have taken from the fire station to our house to simply do their jobs.

My parents considered pursuing litigation against the fire department only to discover from an attorney that cities in Oklahoma are under no legal obligation to protect citizens.

As a Libertarian I realize that my family has to bear responsibility for the cause of the fire. However, I also became well aware of another fact of life: If you count on a not-for-profit government agency that receives all of its funding from the forced taking of our earnings without the accountability that private companies face, then you better make sure that your insurance is up to date and your most important belongings are kept in a fire-proof safe.

Communists in my Classroom

2010-05-11T10:01:00.000-07:00

In an earlier blog entry that many of you responded to, I posted some student thoughts on NFL quarterback, Joe Montana - and his $49 million home. It was clear, from the writings of many of my students, that Socialism is alive and well in America.

Out of pure morbid curiosity, I decided to find out in my summer class, if Communism might also be the favored solution to our nation's problems. So, I played a dirty trick on my students. Here is what they were asked to read and comment on:

__________

This month Congress will vote on the 2010 Equity and Economic Security Act. Below are five of the Act's major provisions. Please read over each of them and then write a short essay explaining whether or not these provisions will help bring about greater economic equality and security for the United States.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

5. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

__________

Of course, as all of you know, these five provisions come directly from The Communist Manifesto written by Messrs. Marx and Engels. There is no such Act (yet). I basically lied to everyone to flush out the Marxists among us.

Brace yourself.

25% of my students were in agreement with parts of, or all of this "Act." Here are some their comments - unedited for grammar or spelling.

"I think this program will bring greater economic quality because each of these points will bring comfort and benefits to the citizens. I think this program will bring a security in economy that will be a benefit to everyone. These program mentioned talk about abolition of things that citizens in the past will like to eliminate, also give a lot of benefits to the public like centralization of communication and transport. I think every single part is a benefit to almost every citizen."

"The only thing the government should possibly implement would be point 5: Centralization of the means of communication and transport in hands of the State."

"I have also been a victim of the corruption of lenders and credit companies, scams, and seen the economic hardships. Therefore, I do feel that this Act will bring about some much needed direction, organization and reconstruction to our much needed economy."

"As we all know the economy was very affected by the property and territory sales. This problem really impacted most of the population, so I think that if Congress get control over this it could absolutely help our economic crisis. Banks were basically one of the central points why economy was so devastated this year. By centralizing the credict in the hands of the state it will possibly regulate and balance the economy."

"I feel that a combination of those changes would result in greater economic equality."

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes could, in my opinion, possibly help out the economy. Abolition of all right of inheritance would help out the security our economy.

_________

There you have it my friends....or should I say comrades?

George Costanza & Texting while Driving laws...

2010-04-28T08:08:00.000-07:00

In a classic episode of Seinfeld, George and Kramer come out of a store with a bottle of wine to discover that they have been blocked in by a double-parker. Irate, George explains to Kramer how incredibly stupid and selfish double-parkers are and that if he ran for president he would insist on "the death penalty for double-parking."

George Costanza for President!!

Today, on the way to work - just like every other day the past couple of years - I found myself almost killed by another Florida lunatic who was texting while driving. I cannot begin to tell you how much I want these people tried, on the side of the road by roving juries, and executed, on the side of the road, by roving execution squads.

Imagine the jobs we could create for the funeral home industry by eliminating these menaces to society! Imagine how we could reduce global warming by getting their cars off the road! Imagine the impact on used-car prices as the families of these idiots have to sell their cars.

The Florida Senate voted 34-4 yesterday to ban texting while driving. The bill would make texting a "secondary violation" - meaning you would have to first be pulled over for doing something else. The first offense would carry a fine of $30 plus court costs. Second offense would be $60. If a driver crashed into me or some other innocent person, six points would be assessed against their drivers license.

The Florida House is NOT expected to to go along with this measure. According to one idiot politician, "There are a lot of things that people do in their cars that are very distracting, and all of them need to be addressed. And it needs to be addressed from a different perspective."

Grow a backbone for Gods sake! Texting leads to six times more dangerous driving conditions than being drunk!

A $30 fine is not going to stop anything when the probablity of getting stopped is so low.

Therefore, until George is elected President I may just take matters in my own hands and pull over texters, have them roll down their window and then beat them with their own phones. (For you internet-police, I am only, like, you-know, sort of, really kidding...)

You texters-while operating 2,000 lbs. of machinery at 70mph are evil and/or stupid and/or selfish.

Turn off your phone and drive so the rest of us can see our families again...

John Paul Stevens and your Home

2010-04-15T17:41:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote to President Obama informing him of his decision to retire from the bench this summer.

Owners of private property all over the United States would have benefited greatly if he would have made this announcement in 2005.

It was in that year that he wrote the majority opinion in one of the most dreadful Supreme Court decisions in the history of our republic.

In the Kelo v. New London, CT decision (liberty lovers need not be reminded of what this case was all about...) Mr. Stevens found that "[p]romoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. As with excercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commerical, residential and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the 5th amendment."

To Stevens - and the rest of the Constitutional revisionists of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, our home is nothing more than a "part" of a "whole" and government knows better than we do what to do with that part.

Good riddance, Mr. Stevens. May you enjoy your retirement in your home - that has not been targeted for an eminent domain taking.

Come on, Mr. President...Throw like a man!

2010-04-06T11:10:00.001-07:00

In case you missed it, President Obama threw out the first pitch at the home opener for the Washington Nationals this season. What a shame. Most baseball fans have been debating whether or not he should have worn a Chicago White Sox hat while on the mound. Real baseball fans - and real men - are discussing his form in throwing out the first pitch.

YouTube it for yourself....

With apologies to women everywhere, our President throws like a girl.

This is not good.

You need the President of the United States to show the world that he is a real leader. Throwing a lollipop ball with a limp wrist does not inspire confidence.

I would suggest that Mr. Obama go out and do any of the following to prove to our nation that his manhood is not to be questioned:

1. Cut down a tree with a chainsaw that he has to start by himself. Then, take an axe and split a few of the logs.

2. Grill out a steak while wearing an old pair of jeans and a ragged t-shirt and eat it (the steak)while having a real beer (not the light beer he prefers).

3. Don't shave for a week and appear at a press conference in hiking boots.

4. Take part in a tackle football game on the white house lawn and break at least one bone in an opponents' body.

5. Be seen reading a book on how to skin a moose with a Bowie Knife.

6. Be seen hunting moose.

7. Tell the next reporter who asks him a question he does not like that, "If you don't shut up I am going to hit you so hard you will wear out from bouncing."

8. Be seen picking his teeth with a twig.

9. Send an open letter to Osama bin Laden challenging him to a fist fight.

10. Take pitching lessons.

What would you add to my list?

How Republicans can win in 2010 & 2012

2010-03-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the socialization of 20% of the nation's economy, Libertarians, Reagan/Goldwater Republicans and Tea Party activists (a blend of the aforementioned) are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 Presidential race.

What follows is a prescription for victory...

1. Forget about Sarah Palin. If you listened to her during the 2008 campaign and today, she is a free-market lightweight with no serious ideas on the issue of taxes, regulations, spending, health care or anything else for that matter. She will get destroyed if she runs and has to intellectually defend her surface-only views on matters that are important to real-Republicans. Rock star novelty acts who use words like "dang" and "youbetcha" are refreshing but not transformative.

2. Identify and defeat every "Bush Republican" who runs in every primary in America. Ronald Reagan's greatest mistake was picking the liberal George H.W. Bush to be V.P. On April 10, 1980 Bush called Reagan's view that drastic reductions in income taxes would lead to more wealth and more government revenue, "Voodoo Economics". He was never a believer in Reagan's Libertarian makeover of the American economy. His son was even worse. Sure we got small cuts in marginal tax rates in 2003 but we also got the most massive increase in domestic welfare spending since the 1960s; thousands of pages of new regulations; a $1.5 trillion prescription drug benefit program that Obama has now added to; new tariffs; restrictions on talented foreign immigrants, etc. etc. All Bush Republicans must be kicked out of office so people like Howard Houchen (Oklahoma) and Marco Rubio (Florida) can lead us back to the 1980s. The simple fact is that today's Republicans have no right to argue against Obama's Socialist agenda when their party helped create the fertile ground from which Socialism grew this decade.

3. Stop talking about gay marriage; where Obama was born; illegal immigration and other social problems.....for now. Reagan used to say that the best family values stemmed from a full-time job. Reagan was anti-abortion and had impeccable standards with those of us who care about morality in government. However, Republicans, by focusing on issues that occupy the outskirts of an unemployment rate of 10%; skyrocketing spending and the nationalization of health care, autos and banking, are missing the bigger picture. If America is going to become France, or worse, it will not matter if Joe and Bill are allowed to marry or if Julio came over here without permits or if Obama was born in a Taliban stronghold somewhere. So, focus on economics, win the elections, create new free-market policies and then when unemployment is back to 3.9% turn your attention to the side issues that you believe to be important.

On behalf of those of us who were abandoned by the Republican Party beginning on January 20, 1989 we wish you well in restoring some sense of small government this November and in 2012.

Step One...

2010-03-19T10:38:00.000-07:00

This weekend, the U.S. Congress will pass legislation that, for the first time in our nations history, will force Americans to purchase a good or service against their will, fine them if they do not purchase it, and jail them if they do not pay the fine.

Please remember, once our government uses force to compel us to buy one good, or service, it has opened the door to force us to buy the next good or service that they deem necessary in the reshaping of our nation into something that the Founders never envisioned.

The governor of Idaho has already informed the attorney general in that state that Idaho will sue the U.S. government over this issue.

One can only hope that the U.S. Supreme Court - when this case gets to them - will rule on the side of our God-given right to use our earnings as we see fit.

If the opposite occurs, this legislation will one day be looked upon by historians as one of the major laws that sped up the decline of our nation.

Why "Education Reform" will never be successful

2010-03-11T06:55:00.000-08:00

In case you missed it, the federal government announced this week the latest and greatest plan to finally, really, really, "we mean it this time", "this is going to work, just you wait and see..." education reform plan.

The central planners who have brought us one of the worst public education models in the developed, or undeveloped, or totally no where near developed world, are serious this time. After decades, give or take a month or two, of unmitigated failure in providing anything more than monumental failure from kindergarten through graduation day, the "experts" have finally realized that what the U.S. needs is a system of uniform standards that will apply to all 50 states. The president wants all kids to be "proficient" in math and English by 2014 and "college ready" by 2020.

To do this, the government will blah, blah, blah and if it does not happen, blah, blah, blah....

You can Google this initiative if you want to, but in 2014, 2024 and on March 11, 2071 at 11:18am we will still have a lousy K-12 system.

Here is why.

1. Teachers in America are largely unqualified to teach. A degree in education is the easiest college degree to obtain and is four years of learning teaching methodology but not four years of becoming an expert in your field. In Finland - a nation that routinely ranks first in the world in multiple subject areas - you have to have a Masters degree in your field of study and six years of on-the-job training before you are allowed to teach. In America you could have a government or science teacher with no direct expertise in government or science, teaching your kid just because they have the four year "teaching degree" and a teaching certificate that legally permits them to stand in front of your kid. Without requiring people to become economists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, etc. before they walk into the classroom, all this round of education reform will do is create new standards without creating new, qualified professionals to help students reach those standards.

2. There is little to no competition for the most at-risk students. If you are rich, or middle-class you have options when it comes to educating your child. You can send them to private school or join the ranks of 2 million homeschooled children. Private schools have to deliver a good product or parents remove their kids. Demand for that school's seats drops and they go out of business. The government schools - no matter what reforms are pursued - will never improve because of school zoning. If you are poor you have no other choice but to send your kid to the school in your district. This legal monopoly destroys education in the U.S. because there is no pressure for schools to improve. As long as schools know that they will be guaranteed customers by rule of law, why should those schools try to innovate? They don't have to. Name another market where you have shop based on your residence. In the free market you can be mobile with your money and that puts intense pressure on suppliers to deliver a good product or service. What if you could only buy a Toyota because that was the closest dealership to your house? Do you think Toyota would rush to fix brake problems in your district or would the dealer tell you, "What are you going to do about it?

3. Unions and tenure are duel cancers for education reform. If you work in the private sector you do not have tenure - meaning a lifetime contract. If you stink, you are gone. What if we had tenure in professional sports? We would have 61-year old quarterbacks playing for your favorite team, throwing 16 interceptions per game and all you could do about it is nothing. Once a teacher has tenure their incentives to produce goes down. Back that up with a Communistic union that protects teachers who are sexual predators, racist and more from being punished and you have a recipe for horrible K-12 education. The teachers union, with power to punish politicians who push for competition and other meaningful reforms is more dangerous, to more American children than any organization on Earth. Terrorists might destroy a few dozen or a few thousand lives at a time. The teachers union is ruining the lives of 50 million children who are forced to live with bad teachers who don't have to care.

Imagine a new cell phone company opening up that has employees who are not trained on how to make cell phones; have lifetime contracts to make cell phones; are protected from being fired if the make bad cell phones and are guaranteed to have customers because the government tells all of us that we have to shop for this cell phone.

What kind of cell phone do you think you would get?

Why should it be any different for your child's education?

A Black History Month - or any month - Tragedy

2010-02-25T08:17:00.000-08:00

Not long ago I was lecturing on Adam Smith's view of Capitalism to approximatley 160 students in three different classes. At one point I began a side discussion on whether Capitalism overcomes racism.

In passing, I asked each of my classes if they knew who Booker T. Washington was. Out of all of these students - many of whom are African-American - only three students indicated that they knew of Mr. Washington. Two of them thought he had "something to do with peanut butter" and one said, "Wasn't he some sort of educator"?

What a shame.

Even though it should, it never ceases to amaze me how pathetic our K-12 schools are at teaching young people about some the world's all-time great leaders in the fight for liberty and free markets.

Booker T. Washington, a former slave who endured inumerable obstacles in his desire to become educated, championed the cause of liberty and capitalism for America's black citizens in the late 1800s and early part of the last century. He traveled the country lecturing on the need for black Americans to rely on themselves to overcome the vestiges of slavery, rather than rely on government for assistance.

In 1901, speaking on the future of black Americans, he said, "When a negro girl learns to cook, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or be able to practice medicine, as well or better than someone else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or color. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.

I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is the great human law that cannot be permanently nullified."

As Black History comes to a close it would be refreshing to meet more people - black and white - who not only know who Booker T. Washington was, but what he stood for so that our nation could move away from the politics of victimization to the concept of personal responsibility.

A Second Revolution is Born in Massachusetts

2010-01-20T08:07:00.000-08:00

January 20, 2010 may go down in history as the day the American people stood up and said enough to encroaching socialism and turned the clock back to January 20, 1981.

29 years ago today, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as our nation's 40th president. His victory was the culmination of a building revolution that became known as the Reagan Revolution. This revolution was the result of government policies - born in the 1930s - that created 14 different income tax brackets - the highest of which was 70% - massive government spending on social welfare and failed military expansions, rising government regulations and overt corruption in each party.

Under Reagan, and in just five years, the number of income tax brackets fell from fourteen to two and the top tax rate fell to only 28%. That meant that productive Americans who got to keep a measly 30 cents on every dollar earned in 1980 could now keep 72 cents of every dollar earned in 1986. The results were astounding. Government revenues increased from $599 billion to $990 billion; the GDP increased by the largest amount in American history; productivity increased; unemployment fell from over 10% to 5% and inflation rates plummeted as more and more suppliers began showing up with their goods and services.

At the same time, deregulation and streamlined government programs slowed or reversed years of growing government which freed up businesses to focus on pursuing profit while workers enjoyed the fruits of rising incomes and employment oppportunities.

Since Reagan left office the U.S. under George Bush, first term Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has seen a dramatic reversal in the capitalistic progress our nation made during the 1980s. It is a matter of public record that our current 10% unemployment rate, skyrocketing national debt; rising regulations and attempts to quasi-nationalize health care, banking and the automobile industry has left the Reagan Revolution relegated to the history books.

Yet, today - on the one year anniversary of the coronation of an openly socialistic politician who was elected promising to move America even farther away from our economic and Constitutional roots the voters in Massachusetts ostensibly said, "No, our roots are more important..."

I am not naive enough to believe that the election of Mr. Brown will lead to wholesale changes in Congress. The Republicans still have a long way to go in finding the core of their values - values shaped by Reagan, Goldwater and others. The liberal Democrats also are far from the pro-business policies of second-term Bill Clinton and JFK.

However, now that the Democrats have lost their filibuster-proof majority, they will have to listen to the growing movement towards less government intrusion in our lives. If they don't, this fall will be an epic rout for Mr. Obama's party and an acceleration of 'tea party' like behavior among Americas frustrated voters.

I look forward to the gridlock that will hopefully derail health care reform, carbon taxes, higher income and estate taxes and other job-killers.

After all, every day of gridlock in Washington, D.C. is one more day that liberty prevails.

A Sampling of the Socialist Mindset

2010-01-11T12:31:00.000-08:00

Today (January 11, 2010) I gave 180 of my new students an article about Joe Montana's house that was featured recently in The Wall Street Journal (November 6, 2009 wsj.com). Mr. Montana is attempting to sell his house for $49 million - a price that reflects some incredible features in and around his property.

I asked my students to comment on what should be done about people facing foreclosure, or people who cannot afford a home, given the fact the people like Mr. Montana enjoy such wonderful houses.

Here is a sampling of the answers I received:

"I believe that the people like Joe Montana are the reasons why regular Americans cannot afford a home or are facing foreclosure. Joe Montana got his wealth and his fame from the American people and I believe he should help the people that really need it. Why is it that a regular sized family needs a 10,000 square foot house on 500 acres that cost nearly 50 million dollars. Joe Montana should move into a regular sized home which cost a couple hundred thousand and then distribute the rest of his wealth to the Americans that made him rich in the first place."

"......the fans who paid his salary are struggling while he spends money on lavish unecessary junk."

"Government tax should be placed on homes worth an excessive amount. The revenues of which should go towards a government program that assists lower-income Americans in buying a home or avoiding foreclosure."

"...[ A bill ] should be passed to allow homeowners to walk away from the home they were paying on without having to be forced to pay the mortgage they cannot afford."

"When I read about the consumption of people who have money like Mr. Montana, I almost feel like supporting a society like Denmark's or Sweden's where 60% of income goes to taxes."

"......there is too much money invested in athlete's salaries. They don't help the economy in any way."

"One thing that I think the government could do to prevent people from losing their homes is pay off for all the houses in America."

"I think that this article shows how the rich stay rich and the poor unfortunately stay poor."

".....one wonders what can be done in order to equalize the playing field. Perhaps setting the limitation of what one can inevitably purchase."

"If people who have large amounts of money are able to afford large homes and nice furniture cannot spare some money to charity, then people like Mr. Montana should have their pay cut and distributed to those who can't afford anything or at least given to local shelters who can use the money for those who can't help themselves."

"Something that could be done is the Congress passing a bill that will force banks and loan companies to lower their interest rates....."

"One suggestion is that property taxes would increase for homes valued over, let's say, $1 million. That excess money could go towards a department that is in charge of dispersing money to future home buyers or those facing foreclosure."

"There should be a law preventing rich civilians from spending so much money on homes."

________

There were many others that echoed the sentiments of the students above.

It is going to be a long semester....

Do Older Americans still believe in liberty?

2009-12-10T11:04:00.000-08:00

Recently, Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas made committed one of the greatest acts of political incorrectness by arguing that older Americans should not be receiving extra taxpayer dollars from the Obama Administration in an era where our mounting budget deficits threaten the long-term economic liberty of our children. Mr. Thomas should be more careful with his words. After all, today’s senior citizens and near seniors has become one of the greatest classes of plunderers in our nation’s history.
It did not used to be this way. From the founding of our nation until 1932 the government’s relationship with us was pretty simple as it applied to retirement and health care. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says nothing about helping us have a nicer retirement or good medicines. The agreement used to be that if you were young and had a job you needed to understand that someday you were going to be old and not want to have a job. Therefore from your young days until your old days you needed to assume personal responsibility for your impending retirement years by saving, investing and spending in a wise and frugal manner. You were also expected, in a nation founded on liberty, not security, to grasp the concept of illness, surgeries, the birth of children and so forth – and financially plan for that to.
Of course, our long experiment with socialistic economic policies began with Franklin D. Roosevelt and has accelerated under Republican rule (see George Bush’s budgets for social welfare programs) and Democratic rule (see today’s President).
For fiscal year 2009 the federal government will spend $3.998 trillion. Of that, $675 billion will be spent on Social Security and $386 billion on Medicare. That means that $ 1.073 trillion or 27 percent of the entire budget will be allocated to senior citizens. As Mr. Thomas bravely pointed out, the federal government is going to have to either raise taxes, or cut spending (you can start laughing now) by $101 trillion over the next 75 years to pay for the mandated future spending on older Americans.
Given our current birth rate and spending levels in other areas where the federal government is in charge, the average 21-year old American will, by the time they are in their mid-40’s, have to pay 50-60% of their total income in taxes in order to meet this obligation. That is up from an average of 33% today.
Many current senior citizens and baby-boomers claim that they are simply getting back what they paid in while they were working. Others argue that current federal spending is some sort of payback for winning World War II. Both arguments are nonsense.
First, during the first several decades that social security existed, people did not live very long, payroll taxes were small and the nation’s population of senior citizens was tiny compared to today. That means that the average American did not pay in much to the system that they are now enjoying. In fact, adjusted for inflation, it takes the average senior about two years to get back everything they paid in. After the two year mark they are simply living off of their children and grandchildren.
As for the World War II argument – or any other argument involving saving the nation – where does the G.I. Bill enter into the payback? Where does the idea that wars are won to preserve liberty rather than gain future political clout to take from your fellow man enter into the equation?
Winning wars is an act of self-interest – you don’t want the bad guys to win and take your stuff. Winning means you get to have your pursuit of happiness back.
If senior citizens really value the things that they fought for – and if the baby boomers really care about the liberty this nation is supposed to enjoy – the last thing any older American should be doing is filing a claim – through the voting process – on the private property of younger Americans.

The Nobel Idiots

2009-10-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

From January 20, 1977 to January 19, 1981 James Earl Carter - our 39th President - managed to allow the Soviet Union to run rampant in Latin and Central America; much of Africa; Afghanistan and remain dominant in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia while simultaneously allowing thugs in Iran to take - and keep - 52 American hostages for 444 days.

His great response? Boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympic games and barring Iranian oil from flowing into the U.S.

By the time he left office 40% of America's military personnel was living on foodstamps while our position as a world leader was diluted into a world joke.

Carter left office as one of our least-popular and weakest presidents.

For his accomplishments, he managed to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Seven years later, Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize after only 37 weeks on the job. His great accomplishment towards world peace has been a speech to the Muslim world, a willingess to engage Iran in nuclear talks and the decision to remove missle protection defenses from Europe.

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan has still not won the Nobel Peace Prize.

All he did - by the admission of his enemies in the Soviet Union - was end the Cold War and save millions from the ravages of nuclear war without firing a shot. During his eight years he accomplished more to save the planet from tyranny without war than every president in our nation's history. The record on this is clear. Go read about it for yourself.

Tell me please - how can two liberals - one who endangered the world with his weakness, and another who has done nothing to make the world a more peaceful place in his 200 plus days in office, win this award when a real savior of our earthly lives does not share in this honor?

I suppose the next award will be the Nobel Memorial Economics prize to Karl Marx.

A Summary of how Government Serves Us

2009-09-11T02:33:00.000-07:00

The following was sent by a former student who understands the case for limited government. Enjoy...

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it is not able to compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.

Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71years to get it right; it is broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right;
they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.

AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America , and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job.

Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.

Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America's health care system - - 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

There is no "Health Care Crisis"

2009-09-08T10:29:00.000-07:00

Lost in the debate on what government should do about health care in America is the question no one seems to want to ask. That is, "Why fix a crisis when there is no crisis?"

According to the Obama Administration somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million people do not have health insurance in America. So what? That is only about 15% of the entire population.

Why do we need to have the federal government - the same government that invades countries that do not invade us first; fail to deliver mail better than our phones or FedEx; provides lousy housing for the poor; lousy education for children; lousy roads, bridges, food inspection services and more - in charge of the biggest industry in America? Who are these functional morons who actually believe that government can do a better job at health care then they can at anything else? The American-Indians on reservations have been getting government care for decades. You would not want to go to one of the clinics these Americans are compelled to use.

I wonder how many of the 50 million people who do not have insurance could afford it but choose to spend their money on other things?

How many of the 50 million could afford some insurance if they altered their lifestyles and allocated their funds in a more rational manner?

How many of the 50 million could have some insurance if they would improve their stock of human capital by learning a trade or getting an education that would make them valuable enough to an employer to gain a job and employer-provided health care?

In a nation with rampant obesity, sexually-transmitted diseases, dangerous drivers, high crime and a "you owe me something" mentality, providing health care through the nose of the taxpayer is going to be very, very expensive. Nations like Canada, Sweden, Norway and other quasi-Socialistic places that have low populations and people who do not look as bad, or act as bad as we do, already have tax burdens that are hard for the average worker to manage.

In a nation of 307 million people with all of our problems, reforming health care to save 15% of us is simply idiotic.

In a week or so, the posting on this site will provide some economically sensible solutions to problems in our health care market.

Stay tuned...

Cash for Clunkers = Horrible Economic Policy

2009-08-01T07:25:00.000-07:00

In my 20 - plus years as an economist I have witnessed many taxpayer-financed programs that have have little or no merit - economically, morally or Constitutionally.

However, I think I may now be witnessing a program that confirms my deep belief that Americans are almost completely economically ignorant.

Recently the Obama Administration announced plans to steal $1 billion (plus interest) from future taxpayers to help current Americans buy a new car. The "Cash for Clunkers" program, as of today, has used up all $1 billion and now the socialists running our country are preparing to add upwards of $2 billion to this "successful" stimulus to our moribund automobile sector.

This program is steeped in economic stupidity for a variety of reasons. Here's why:

1. If you are a car buyer who thinks of this program as $4,500 of your money at work you are wrong. This is not a tax credit where the government tells you to deduct $4,500 from your 2009 tax bill (assuming your tax bill is at least $4,500). This is government telling you that it will take almost $4,500 from your fellow taxpayers and give it to you. If you take it, over 99% of this figure will constitute theft on your part. Legalized theft, but theft nonetheless.

To calculate how much of the $4,500 is "your money" all you have to do is look at what you typically pay in federal income taxes each year. The federal government collects about $2.5 trillion in taxes annually. You need to figure what percentage of $2.5 trillion you paid. Then, take that percentage out of $1 billion (the cost of the program so far). THAT is how much of the $4,500 that is your money, rather than your neighbors money. When you do the math you will probably see that out of $4,500, your "tax credit" is probably 7 or 8 cents and the rest is government plundering on your behalf.

2. If you think the program will stimulate the automobile sector, think again. Yes, over 220,000 new cars have been purchased so far. But that means 220,000 cars that were still running have also been taken off the market. In this program you have to trade in a car that is operable then the dealer destroys the engine and it leaves the supply part of the market for cars. 220,000 new cars driven away, 220,000 used cars, with value to someone (the poor, teenagers, parents looking for a car for a kid, etc.) leave. That is called a zero-sum event. With used cars now becoming more scarce - especially if the program continues - we will see a tighter supply for these cars and higher prices for poorer Americans who could have used an $800 car to get around in for a couple of years.

The 22,000 new ones also are a false stimulus. Many of these would have been bought anyway but the lucky people who were already in the market simply get to save money at our expense.

Of those who would not have bought a new one, now the government has encouraged them to buy. This looks like a good thing for our auto industry but what happens when this false stimulus ends? Do you think the car industry is going to add more workers for a temporary program? What happens to the people who went into debt - during a recession caused by too much debt - to buy a new car? The law of opportunity cost means they took money away from some other purpose to buy this car. That means less money for other sectors of the economy and debt incurred at a time when less debt would be a better idea.

3. The planet will not cool off as a result of this program, but more people will die from it. The Obama Administration launched this program in part to get pollution-belching cars off the road and help lower the temperature of Earth. Give me a break. Let's say I trade in my truck - that gets a polar bear harming 13 miles per gallon - for a new truck that gets 19 miles per gallon. Better yet, I trade it in for a car that gets 29 miles per gallon. So, I get an improvement of 16 miles per gallon by driving my new tin can. Will I drive more now that I get better mileage? Will I be less safe on the roads? Yes and yes.

It is a rational reaction to enjoy the better mileage by going to the beach, taking more frequent trips to the grocer and other trips - long and short - that I would not take in my current gas-guzzling truck.

One brief stop on Google will also help you uncover the hard data on the number of people who get killed by driving smaller cars.

These accidents have to be paid for by insurance, health care professionals and by consumers who have to spend more to fix small cars than bigger, safer ones. This is a real cost that few in government are talking about.

Finally, and perhaps most sadly, is the cost of raising our kids to think of government as Santa or the tooth fairy. For every adult who buys a new car under this program they are unwittingly sending a message to their kids that there is "free money" out there for the taking and that we should just go get it.

That, my friends, simply adds to the ranks of future voters who line up to steal other people's money on election day.

Enjoy your new car.

Mandating Unemployment - July 13 Wall St. Journal

2009-07-13T17:46:00.000-07:00

Here's some economic logic to ponder. The unemployment rate in June for American teenagers was 24%, for black teens it was 38%, and even White House economists are predicting more job losses. So how about raising the cost of that teenage labor?
Sorry to say, but that's precisely what will happen on July 24, when the minimum wage will increase to $7.25 an hour from $6.55. The national wage floor will have increased 41% since the three-step hike was approved by the Democratic Congress in May 2007. Then the economy was humming, with an overall jobless rate of 4.5% and many entry-level jobs paying more than the minimum. That's a hard case to make now, with a 9.5% national jobless rate and thousands of employers facing razor-thin profit margins.
There's been a long and spirited debate among economists about who gets hurt and who benefits when the minimum wage rises. But in a 2006 National Bureau of Economic Research paper, economists David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Bank reviewed the voluminous literature over the past 30 years and came to two almost universally acknowledged conclusions.
First, "a sizable majority of the studies give a relatively consistent (though not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects." Second, "studies that focus on the least-skilled groups [i.e., teens, and welfare moms] provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects."
Proponents argue that millions of workers will benefit from the bigger paychecks. But about two of every three full-time minimum-wage workers get a pay raise anyway within a year on the job. Meanwhile, those who lose their jobs or who never get a job in the first place get a minimum wage of $0.
Mr. Neumark calculates that the 70-cent per-hour minimum wage hike this month would kill "about 300,000 jobs for those between the ages of 16-24." Single working mothers would also be among those most hurt.
Keep in mind the Earned Income Tax Credit already exists to help low-wage workers and has been greatly expanded in recent years. The EITC also spreads the cost of the wage supplement to all Americans, not merely to employers, so it doesn't raise the cost of hiring low-wage workers.
For example, consider a single mom with two kids who earns the current $6.55 minimum at a full-time, year-round job. In 2009 she receives a $5,028 EITC cash payment from Uncle Sam -- or about an extra $2.50 per hour worked. Other federal income supplements, such as the refundable child tax credit, add another $1,900 or so. Thus at a wage of $6.55 an hour, her actual pay becomes $10.02 an hour -- more than a 50% increase from the current minimum. (See nearby table.)
But that single mom can't collect those checks if she doesn't have a job, and the tragedy of a higher minimum wage is that it will prevent thousands of working moms striving to pull their families out of poverty from being hired in the first place.
If Congress were wise and compassionate, it would at least suspend the wage hike for one or two years until the job market recovers. We know this Congress won't do that, but someone has to speak up for the poorest, least skilled Americans.

Government health care quiz...

2009-07-13T17:44:00.000-07:00

When was the last time you encountered a government agency that consistently provided a better good or service than the private sector? I am compiling a list so please think long and hard, send along your response on this blog and have a nice day.

July 4th is no day to celebrate

2009-07-05T08:38:00.001-07:00

From the July 4, 2009 Orlando Sentinel

In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison, the principal author of the U.S. Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object."I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents," he said.A few decades later, while serving in the same capacity as a member of the House of Representatives, David Crockett, upon listening to pleas from his fellow congressmen to give tax dollars to the widow of a deceased naval officer, said, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress, we have no right so as to appropriate a dollar of the public money."Madison and Crockett would not recognize the United States of America as we approach our nation's 233rd birthday. In fact, these gentlemen, along with the others who created our great nation, might suggest that the July Fourth festivities be canceled and replaced with a national day of mourning for what we have lost the past several years.When our republic was founded, the framers of our Constitution formed a rule book that established our government as the protector of our life, liberty and private property. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that along with national defense, Congress can allocate our earnings to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry.Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others argued that "general welfare" was confined to only those functions that secure our rights. These three natural rights were to be the only rights we would enjoy. Everything else — a car, access to education, decent health care, concert tickets — would be part of our interests, things we would have to obtain by serving our fellow man effectively enough so as to earn the income necessary to enjoy them. Where our earning capabilities were stunted by disabilities, illness or bad luck, charity from secular and religious sources was to fill the gaps.During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton argued that the general welfare clause should not be confined to the specific spending clauses in our Constitution. Hamilton argued that the government should be able to spend money on anything so long as the argument could be made that it was for the general welfare of the nation. Not one of the Founding Fathers agreed with Hamilton during the convention.The Supreme Court agreed with Hamilton in 1935. Fearing that the Roosevelt administration would pack the Supreme Court with justices sensitive to his big-government agenda, the court specifically mentioned Hamilton as the Founding Father who best understood what the role of government should be in our lives. Consequently, since the 1930s, the cost of government has risen from about $20 per person annually to more than $10,000.Today, our quasi-socialistic nation has moved so far from the intent of the Founding Fathers that it is laughable to hear politicians swear an oath that even mentions the Constitution.Consider the past few years alone. Trillions of tax dollars have been allocated to pre-emptive wars, domestic spying on innocent citizens and bank, automotive and insurance bailouts. We have seen huge increases in social-welfare spending for the elderly, people facing foreclosure and farmers who were supposed to know that sometimes it rains and sometimes it does not.We are witnessing the nationalization of General Motors, the banking sector and the health-care industry, all while higher taxes are imposed on America's most productive citizens to pay for the well-being of the less productive. Moreover, we now have the highest corporate income-tax burden in the developed world, while India, much of Eastern Europe and China moves in the opposite direction.If you believe in liberty and small government, July Fourth is no day to celebrate. We cannot, in good conscience, celebrate our independence when we have become so dependent on the government.It is a day to think about how much longer a nation can survive when the citizenry forms a longer and longer line at the trough of public tax dollars.

2009-05-29T12:49:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal
MAY 29, 2009
The 'Unseen' Deserve Empathy, Too

By JOHN HASNAS
While announcing Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court, President Barack Obama praised her as a judge who combined a mastery of the law with "a common touch, a sense of compassion, and an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live." This is in keeping with his earlier statement that he wanted to appoint a justice who possessed the "quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles."

Without casting aspersions on Judge Sotomayor, we may ask whether these are really the characteristics we want in a judge.

Clearly, a good judge must have "an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live." Judicial decision-making involves the application of abstract rules to concrete facts; it is impossible to render a proper judicial decision without understanding its practical effect on both the litigants and the wider community.

But what about compassion and empathy? Compassion is defined as a feeling of deep sympathy for those stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering; empathy is the ability to share in another's emotions, thoughts and feelings. Hence, a compassionate judge would tend to base his or her decisions on sympathy for the unfortunate; an empathetic judge on how the people directly affected by the decision would think and feel. What could be wrong with that?

Frederic Bastiat answered that question in his famous 1850 essay, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen." There the economist and member of the French parliament pointed out that law "produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them." Bastiat further noted that "[t]here is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen."

This observation is just as true for judges as it is for economists. As important as compassion and empathy are, one can have these feelings only for people that exist and that one knows about -- that is, for those who are "seen."

One can have compassion for workers who lose their jobs when a plant closes. They can be seen. One cannot have compassion for unknown persons in other industries who do not receive job offers when a compassionate government subsidizes an unprofitable plant. The potential employees not hired are unseen.

One can empathize with innocent children born with birth defects. Such children and the adversity they face can be seen. One cannot empathize with as-yet-unborn children in rural communities who may not have access to pediatricians if a judicial decision based on compassion raises the cost of medical malpractice insurance. These children are unseen.

One can feel for unfortunate homeowners about to lose their homes through foreclosure. One cannot feel for unknown individuals who may not be able to afford a home in the future if the compassionate and empathetic protection of current homeowners increases the cost of a mortgage.

In general, one can feel compassion for and empathize with individual plaintiffs in a lawsuit who are facing hardship. They are visible. One cannot feel compassion for or empathize with impersonal corporate defendants, who, should they incur liability, will pass the costs on to consumers, reduce their output, or cut employment. Those who must pay more for products, or are unable to obtain needed goods or services, or cannot find a job are invisible.

The law consists of abstract rules because we know that, as human beings, judges are unable to foresee all of the long-term consequences of their decisions and may be unduly influenced by the immediate, visible effects of these decisions. The rules of law are designed in part to strike the proper balance between the interests of those who are seen and those who are not seen. The purpose of the rules is to enable judges to resist the emotionally engaging temptation to relieve the plight of those they can see and empathize with, even when doing so would be unfair to those they cannot see.

Calling on judges to be compassionate or empathetic is in effect to ask them to undo this balance and favor the seen over the unseen. Paraphrasing Bastiat, if the difference between the bad judge and the good judge is that the bad judge focuses on the visible effects of his or her decisions while the good judge takes into account both the effects that can be seen and those that are unseen, then the compassionate, empathetic judge is very likely to be a bad judge. For this reason, let us hope that Judge Sotomayor proves to be a disappointment to her sponsor.

Mr. Hasnas is a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law.

Some thoughts on homeschooling..

2009-05-27T18:55:00.000-07:00

5/27: Letters to the Editor
May 27, 2009
Home-schooled children are smart, considerateIn Monday's Sentinel ("Home-schoolers, don't quit system"), Amy Platon argued that parents who home-school their children are creating citizens who will have less compassion for their community, avoid improving the lives of our fellow man and only look out for their own interests.As a professor in Orlando for the past 18 years and father of two home-schooled boys, I think I can respond to her concerns.The home-schooled students who come to my economics classes are, along with their counterparts from India, Russia and China, my best students. They earn the highest grades, have wonderful communication skills and are willing to help their fellow students. In fact, many of our nation's best universities seek out home-schooled students because of their unique life experiences and high SAT scores.In areas where my wife and I are not experts, the free market of ideas has provided experts. We use private-school clubs and programs, free-market educational resources and cooperatives with parents who are specialists in everything from electricity to pottery to provide our sons with an enriched learning experience. Moreover, through music and sports programs, we help our boys function in a society of non-home-schooled children.
Platon should be concerned that America's public schools rank at or near the bottom of international comparisons. If concerned parents want their kids to emerge from this epic recession as viable competitors with Chinese and Indian children, then looking into the home-school option would be a good place to start.Jack Chambless Oakland

Government as car maker...

2009-05-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

The moment we have all been waiting for has finally arrived. The United States government is officially in the car business. The same government that has given us the wildly successful post office; public education; American-Indian reservations; the War on Poverty, drugs and terrorism; public housing; forest management and many other highlights in the history of things that don't work, is now poised to give us our future automobiles.

Let's take a moment to review how we got here.

First, the 'Big Three' American companies failed miserably to compete with Japaneses car companies from the early 70's on. With the help of the economically illiterate United Autoworkers union, American companies saw declining market shares, rising costs and inferior quality come home to roost.

Facing bankruptcy, two of the three run to Washington, D.C. to beg for the plundered tax dollars of people who drive Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais and other cars that are not made by GM or Chrysler. Our government proceeds to hand them billions of dollars and a threat to come up with a better model in a couple of months (to replace what took decades to doom them) or face the pressure of federal intrusions into how to get us from point A to B on the highway.

Of course the beggars from Detroit failed to deliver on this impossible task and the Obama Administration, a.k.a, the "Superior Ones" ostensibly nationalized GM by taking a 50% ownership stake and condemned Chrysler be the certain death of being largely run by that world-class company, Fiat.

Now that the federal government has huge ownership stakes in both companies, the feds get to tell the companies what to do. Naturally, this means the companies will be forced to do things that have not even one remote connection to anything that the laws of supply and demand would insist they do.

In a free market, absent bailouts and takeovers by government, GM and Chrysler would be wise to file for bankruptcy, close every plant in unproductive, union states and move to places like Texas, Florida and other places where you can hire workers for far less than the absurd amounts the UAW workers get. Then, as smaller, leaner companies, GM and Chrysler could go about competing with Toyota and Honda on a playing field that Adam Smith would love.

Instead, on May 18th, GM CEO, Barack Obama announced that he will be determining what course of action the car companies will now face. HE has decided that all cars should get 30% better fuel economy than they do now by the year 2016. HE has demanded that this take place so that we can all fight global warming in smaller, lighter, less roomy death traps on wheels.

Take a look at the data for yourself. When government forces our cars to get better mileage, highway deaths increase.

These cars will cost more (Obama predicts $600 more) and will not have the same power or capacity that our vehicles do at this time.

Our marketplace used to tell car companies very clearly that size and power is what we want most. Now tree huggers and "Save the Polar Bears" activists will tell us what to drive.

With any luck we will get to drive cars like the East German Trabant (see photo) This is the car that gave Communism a bad name. Powered by a two-stroke pollution generator that maxed out at an ear-splitting 18 hp, the Trabant was a hollow lie of a car constructed of recycled worthlessness (actually, the body was made of a fiberglass-like Duroplast, reinforced with recycled fibers like cotton and wood). A virtual antique when it was designed in the 1950s, the Trabant was East Germany's answer to the VW Beetle — a "people's car," as if the people didn't have enough to worry about. Trabants smoked like an Iraqi oil fire, when they ran at all, and often lacked even the most basic of amenities, like brake lights or turn signals.

Road trip anyone???

An Economist's Solution to Bad Election Choices...

2009-04-28T10:04:00.000-07:00

President Obama's first 100 days are almost over and, as usual, we have evidence that we are a nation that is rapidly devolving over time. From Messrs. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin to Messrs. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Barney Frank is not what our liberty-loving Founders would have had in mind, but given the existence of universal suffrage it is to be expected that the quality of our "leaders" would deteriorate - and sometimes rapidly - over time.

The problem with our political system is simple. Every person 18 and up - even if they are idiots - get to vote. That makes no sense on numerous levels.

First, how many people from our government schools know anything about our Constitution? How many of them can tell you how long our nation went without an income tax, or what eminent domain is, or what the 'general welfare' clause means?

Without a firm undestanding of our nation's rule book - starting with the fact that we are a republic, not a majority-rule, heavy-handed democracy - how can any one claim that that they are adding value to the electoral process?

Second, under universal suffrage, we have a large segment of the population that uses thier vote to simply plunder the voter next to them. Voting for a living may seem, to our current socialist leaders, to be a perfectly acceptable proposition, but if one looks at the facts our Founders specifically said that no where in the Constitution lies a provision to take the private property of someone who is more productive than you. If I do that as an individual acting on my own I go to jail. If I do it on a Tuesday in November I am considered a good citizen for voting for the thief of my choice.

Third, why should someone who is at home at this moment smoking crack and watching 'American Idol' re-runs get one vote when Bill Gates gets one vote? Gates is far more important to our nation than the crack smoker and yet we have a system where unproductive people can, over time, out number productive people; get organized into voting blocs and push for candidates who pander to their desire to live off of the fruits of other people's labor.

To fix this we need to move away from the 'one person, one vote' nonsense and towards a system that weights your vote on how much you serve your fellow man. Of course, in our somewhat free market economy the way we measure your service is on how much money you create (earn) every year. Thus, a superior voting system would have a person bring a copy of their tax returns to the polling place on election day with a bar code that can be scanned. What would be scanned? The person's gross income (since net is simply a function of government's ability to steal property).

If you have a gross income of $33,529, that is how many times your vote for President, Senator, whatever, would count. If you served your fellow man to the tune of $23 million, you would get 23 million votes.

To make this system more efficient, any income you earned from government subsidies, bailouts, welfare, etc. would be excluded.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that people like Sean Penn, Ben Affleck and other rich, but Consitutionally ignorant people would get a lot of votes. But so would a lot more business men and women who don't vote for liberal socialists like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. They also don't vote for people like liberal-Republican John McCain.

They do vote for people like Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher.

In other words, they vote for people who respect their right to earn and keep private property.

That, my friends, is what all of us who work need in Washington, D.C.

Daniel Hannan and our reality

2009-03-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

I wonder who would have the courage to say this to George W. Bush or Barack H. Obama?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs&feature=related

I look forward to your comments.

Jack Chambless

Rights vs. Wishes - some thoughts from Professor Walter Williams

2009-03-24T08:03:00.000-07:00

We hear so much about "rights" -- a right to this and a right to that. People say they have a right to decent housing, a right to adequate health care, food and a decent job, and more recently, senior citizens have a right to prescription drugs. In a free society, do people have these rights? Let's look at it.

At least in the standard historical usage of the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. A right confers no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. That right imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference.

Contrast those rights to the supposed right to decent housing or medical care. Those supposed rights do confer obligations upon others. There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. If you don't have money to pay for decent housing or medical services, and the government gives you a right to those services, where do you think the money comes from?

If you said "From some other American," go to the head of the class. Your right to decent housing and medical care requires that some other American have less of something else, namely diminished rights to his earnings.

Let's apply this bogus concept of rights to free speech and the right to travel freely. If we were to apply it to my right to free speech, my free speech rights would confer financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel freely would require that others provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, "Williams, yes you have rights to free speech and travel rights, but I'm not obligated to pay for them!"

As human beings, we all have certain unalienable rights. Of the rights we possess, we have a right to delegate to government. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate it to government. In other words, we can say to government, "We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we give you the authority to defend us."

By contrast, I don't possess the right to take your earnings for any reason. Since I have no such right, I cannot delegate it to government. If I did take your earnings for housing and medical services, it would rightfully be described as an act of theft. When government does it, it's still theft -- the only difference is that it's legalized theft sanctioned by a majority vote.

Decent housing, good medical care and decent jobs are not rights at all, at least not in a free society -- they're wishes. As such, I'd agree with most Americans because I also wish that everyone had decent housing, a high paying job and good medical care.

Adam Smith, Chris Gardner and the Rest of Us...

2009-03-09T07:52:00.001-07:00

Monday, March 9, 2009

On March 9, 1776 the first of two earth-shaking documents on liberty were published. Of course we all know (with the exception of some of you who spent your youth in government schools) which document was published on July 4th of that year. Not as well known was the book by a Scottish professor of moral philosophy entitled, "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". This book by Adam Smith laid the groundwork for economic liberty all over the world. If you have ever eaten food, enjoyed shelter from inclimate weather or been able to avoid being naked in public you are the direct beneficiary of the infrastructure that was put in place by Mr. Smith when he argued that self-interested behavior, when pursued within the context of our "natural liberties" leads to society gaining goods and services far more quickly and effectively than when government planners set out to do the same thing.

Which brings me to my favorite economics movie - and a modern day hero in the world Adam Smith envisioned.A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to watch The Pursuit of Happyness with my teenage daughter. If you have not yet seen this film it is ostensibly about a man who attempts – over and over again – to overcome economic obstacles as he pursues his version of happiness. The lead character in the movie (played brilliantly by Will Smith), even mentions Thomas Jefferson and our constitutional right to pursue happiness.About half way through the film my daughter leaned over and whispered, “So daddy, do you still think the government shouldn’t help people like him?”

This was an extremely profound question inasmuch as my daughter has heard me in and out of the classroom discussing the economics, morality and Constitutionality of using tax dollars in the name of benevolence.John F. Kennedy once said, “I do not believe that Washington should do for the people what they can do for themselves through local and private effort.” As it turns out, JFK’s opinion is actually an important Constitutional fact, as well. If one takes a look at Article One, Section Eight, Clause One of our nations’ rulebook we can see that the Founders allow Congress to spend tax dollars on national defense, debts incurred in the protection of our rights and on expenditures for the ‘general welfare’ of our nation. Clauses 2-18 then enunciate what general welfare means. Any reading of the works of Messrs. Madison, Jefferson, etc. clearly indicates that the use of tax dollars to financially prop up any individual member of our society is prohibited.

The Founders felt that private initiative, family and charity – both secular and religious – were better tools to drive people out of poverty and into more productive, and ultimately more profitable pursuits.But what about people who are really trying to follow Adam Smith's lead but continue to bump up against the random walk of life that often knocks them down over and over again? Would it hurt anything if the arm of government, financed with the tax dollars of others, reached out just to those people with temporary aid?

This question came to my mind over and over again during this movie and I found myself slightly bending towards the more socialistic conclusion that a proper function of government is to help those who are really trying to help themselves. After all, even JFK yielded to the movement to create a social welfare state.Yet, by the time the movie had ended and I was walking in the parking lot with my daughter I was able to tell her that not only were the Founders still correct, but that the man depicted in that film had proven that without any government assistance people can triumph over enumerable odds. In fact, the astute observer cannot miss the fact that government turned out to be his largest enemy. The big issue to consider is this:If government could identify those who are trying (a monumental task), would those people keep trying once taxpayer aid arrived? Franklin Roosevelt once called welfare the “subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

Not only has he been proven to be correct (and he was the first to sign off on welfare), but we are now faced with a growing perception by the elderly, the baby boomers, people facing foreclosure, GM, the banks and virtually every supporter of our new president that government should always assist us first before we dig down and find the fortitude to assist ourselves.As it turns out, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Chris Gardner had the right idea. If we can just get our fellow Americans to realize that the more government assumes our responsibilities the more power government gains to take away our liberty and private property, then we will be one day closer to turning the corner on this current walk towards socialism.

What "Trickle-Up" Economics will look like

2009-03-03T05:54:00.000-08:00

When President Obama released the summary of his first budget for fiscal year 2010 he stated that the past eight years had "once and for all" refuted the notion that the economy can grow by letting wealthier Americans keep more of their earnings, or as Thomas Jefferson called it, "the fruits of their labor."

Of course while Mr. Obama was running for president he repeatedly claimed that we need to grow the economy "from the bottom up" rather than from the top down.

His budget is a fulfillment of his campaign promise to go after those who run our businesses and supply us with the things we want and need by raising the top two income tax brackets while expanding income tax credits to millions of Americans who - hang on to your seats - currently pay no income taxes.

How, you might ask, can you cut taxes for people who pay zero taxes? It is simple. If you are a poorer American who has a job you qualify for what the government calls the Earned Income Tax Credit. After taking your legal tax deductions to bring your income tax obligation to zero you then get a check - from the earnings of other taxpayers - on top of that. In effect you receive a welfare payment for getting up and going off to serve your fellow man.

Under the Obama budget he will give even more people a tax credit which will, according to estimates, lead to almost 48% of all Americans owing no federal income taxes at all. 52% of us would shoulder the burden for the more than $3.5 trillion budget he has envisioned for our nation.

Under his "trickle up" economics theory, by creating even fewer taxpayers at the bottom rung of the income scale we will get more people buying the things businesses offer for sale. More buying means more demand. More demand means more jobs, in theory, for those who will be needed to supply low-wage earners with goods and services.

The next several years will be a lot of fun for economists who study the relationship between income tax rates and economic performance. The "theory" of trickle-down economics has been studied for decades. The data from the U.S. in the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, along with data from China, Eastern Europe, Chile, Sweden, Ireland and other parts of the world is quite clear. When tax rates fall - especially rates paid by the most productive members of the economy - the jobs and wealth created from the top all the way down to the bottom is significant. In effect, poor people become relatively wealthy poor people in places that reward risk takers.

We have not yet seen what happens under the "trickle-up" theory. However, if hammering richer people during a horrible recession while cutting taxes for people who work at McDonald's leads us to the prosperity Mr. Obama claims we will see, I will be the first to argue that Mr. Obama should win the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Stay tuned....

The Folly of "Community Service"

2009-02-26T11:38:00.000-08:00

During his address to Congress this week, President Obama indicated that in exchange for a year of community service he would have the federal government provide financial assistance to people struggling to pay for college or other educational choices.

What nonsense.

First, this form of social engineering - government picking winners and losers based on government's judgment on what is good for America - is economically inefficient and morally lacking in legitimacy.

Let's say you are a student majoring in chemical engineering with a desire to leave school in four years and then pursue a paying job making environmentally-friendly fertilizers for some large corporation. You have decided - pursuant to your self-interest - that you would be able to best serve your fellowman in this fashion. Yet, to President Obama, this service - that might ultimately lead to less pollution from farm runoff - is not a form of "community service" because you got paid and your company is a profit-seeker.

To Mr. Obama, you would only qualify for greater tuition tax credits or direct taxpayer aid if you took your degree and then "volunteered" to help farmers in Alabama or Africa learn more about low-impact agriculture. By volunteering you have stepped into a morally superior (to the socialist) form of community service. One untouched by Adam Smith's treatise on self-love.

Since when did government officials become the final arbiters of what is moral or good? Why is your love of self - and money for your services - that leads to improving the lives of your fellow man a less noble pursuit than doing something for no money? Why does Mr. Obama get to say who deserves a tax break and who does not? When did government become the best judge of where engineers or accountants or hairdressers spend their time?

Community service is a wonderful thing, if pursued without the arm of government using the tax code to reward or punish. Community service can also come with a paycheck and profits.

Perhaps President Obama would serve our communities best by allocating his time to things that government is supposed to do rather than lecturing us on what we should be doing.

When Journalists are bad for the economy...

2009-02-24T11:37:00.001-08:00

Earlier this week, NBC News political reporter, Chuck Todd appeared to discuss President Obama's budget - and his plans to raise the top income tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. Mr. Todd stated that - as a matter of fact - that this tax increase would lead to greater revenue and help reduce the deficit.

There are very few major universities that require or even encourage journalism majors to take an economics class. This is a shameful oversight that has helped spawn an entire wave of economic illiteracy that keeps viewers and readers in the dark when it comes to what economic policies work.

Mr. Todd would be well served to examine the long history of cuts - and increases - in marginal income tax rates before he states that tax hikes will lead to greater tax revenues. With a bare minimum of research he would be able to see that individuals react in a dynamic fashion to changes in taxes. That is to say that we will not see the most productive Americans say, "Oh, dear, I must now send the IRS 39.6% of my earnings."

We will see those Americans respond to the negative incentives of higher marginal tax rates by altering their behavior in ways that either lead to less revenue or a slowdown in the growth of income tax collections.

This week, Orlando Sentinel business columnist, Jim Stratton claimed that the U.S. economy was suffering the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Mr. Stratton is doing a great disservice to the readers of the Sentinel by ignoring, or being ingnorant of the fact that in 1980 the U.S. endured an unemployment rate of over 10% while the rate of inflation was over 13%. This "misery index" of over 23% is far greater than today where we have an unemployment rate of 7.6% and an inflation rate that is near 0% due to the decline in the demand for most goods and services.

Our nation relies heavily on "experts" in print and on television to inform us. Some, like ABC's John Stossel do a wonderful job explaining economics. It would behoove most of the other "experts" to avoid contributing to the disease of economic illiteracy.

Obama's Tax Role Models

2009-02-23T11:41:00.000-08:00

JFK and Clinton can be tax role models for Obama