How Republicans can win in 2010 & 2012

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.

Why "Education Reform" will never be successful

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

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 Sampling of the Socialist Mindset

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?

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

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

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