Category Archives: Bush

U.S. To The World: ‘Don’t Worry Be Happy’

Addiction, Barack Obama, Bush, Economy, Europe, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation

“World worries how US will pay for stimulus,” blared a headline in The International Herald Tribune.

But, like the lyrics to that 1988 drone, the US’s message to the world is: “Don’t Worry Be Happy.”

Obama’s cool with spending more than even “W” the wastrel managed to spend. What does it say about galloping central planning in the US, when even statist France, where 2.5 million protesters took to the streets, is refusing to go beyond its Keynesian comfort zone:

“Prime Minister François Fillon on Monday rejected demands that the French government seek to stimulate consumer spending … to lift France out of its economic slump”:

‘It would be irresponsible to chose [sic] another policy, which would increase our country’s indebtedness …,’ Fillon said in a speech in Lyon.”

To cure the addict, the world must stop enabling the American government: dethrone the dollar as the world’s reserve currency—a status that comes with a license to print money promiscuously. Successive American governments have abused this status and debased their country’s coin.

The American people refused to stop the madmen in change (they could have, by electing Ron Paul, the only sane representative running). Maybe the world must stop enabling the madmen and the addicted American electorate.

U.S. To The World: 'Don’t Worry Be Happy'

Addiction, Barack Obama, Bush, Europe, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation

“World worries how US will pay for stimulus,” blared a headline in The International Herald Tribune.

But, like the lyrics to that 1988 drone, the US’s message to the world is: “Don’t Worry Be Happy.”

Obama’s cool with spending more than even “W” the wastrel managed to spend. What does it say about galloping central planning in the US, when even statist France, where 2.5 million protesters took to the streets, is refusing to go beyond its Keynesian comfort zone:

“Prime Minister François Fillon on Monday rejected demands that the French government seek to stimulate consumer spending … to lift France out of its economic slump”:

‘It would be irresponsible to chose [sic] another policy, which would increase our country’s indebtedness …,’ Fillon said in a speech in Lyon.”

To cure the addict, the world must stop enabling the American government: dethrone the dollar as the world’s reserve currency—a status that comes with a license to print money promiscuously. Successive American governments have abused this status and debased their country’s coin.

The American people refused to stop the madmen in change (they could have, by electing Ron Paul, the only sane representative running). Maybe the world must stop enabling the madmen and the addicted American electorate.

Does He Cry? Is There A Twinkle In His Eye?

Barack Obama, Bush, Democrats, Economy, Political Economy, Republicans, Socialism

That’s the substance of press conferences with BHO’s press pimp. And: Where will He watch the Super Bowl? Who’s invited to His White House Super Bowl Bash? How late does He work? What’s He reading?

Seriously, when Obama screws you over, it just feels right. He has that certain je ne sais quoi.

Indeed, Obama governing means that at last a “moral” man is in charge of deficit and bankruptcy-based spending. We’re safe; someone good has assumed control of the printing press. And what a relief that is. You just know that Obama spending the country into oblivion is vastly different from the Republicans doing the same.

As proof, under Obama’s tutelage, the elites have already formed a new task force to minister to middle-class Americans. It’ll be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden (a millionaire whose charitable giving is a fraction of the much-maligned, middle-class, Palin family). Right there is an example of the new goodness at work, to say nothing of a classic government make-work scheme.

So far, Obama and the Obama Nation demonstrate that their understanding of government’s role is of a piece. And, frankly, not much different to that of the Republicans, who agree with the principle of stimulating in public, but prefer that it not be as vigorous as Obama likes to stimulate.

Only a few weeks back, the Republicans voted for the outgoing thug’s bailout bonanza. Of course, in highly discerning Republican minds–the kind of Ben-Stein discerning–there is a difference between stimulating the financial sector and lavishing stuff on any and all à la Obama. To those of us who want to return the debate to the proper, constitutional role of government, there isn’t.

One thing is manifestly clear: If the Republicans were in power, they’d be doing pretty much what Obama is doing.

Based on the Republican Party’s unimpeachable record as an engine of government growth over the decades, it is quite clear that any show of principles by the Republicans is politically expedient and certainly fleeting.

Come to think of it, in the Republican opposition to the “stimulus” I have yet to discern an abiding principle, except one that reiterates my characterization of them here:

“How much to hand-out; who to hand it to; which hand-out makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

For example, Susan Collins, a Republican,

said she wants to work “with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a final stimulus package that will indeed jump-start our economy.” But she worries that not all of the proposed spending — an aide points to a proposal for research on pandemic flu — is appropriate for the stimulus package. “We need to try and achieve the right balance, the right size, and the right mix of tax relief and spending proposals,” Sen. Collins said. “I am not at all certain that we have achieved these goals in this bill.”

It is not that the opposing Republicans don’t approve of the Keynesian model being followed by Obama (and Bush before him); they do. But they’d prefer to find spending programs that are in line with their “values”: faith based initiatives, rather than planned parenting. Again, I don’t detect any fundamental shift in principles among the party that cheered Bush’s bailouts and his stimulus. Correct me of I’m wrong.

Incidentally, even for a commie Keynesian like our Kenyan, this path is not beyond reproach. The Economist makes the following point:

“Mr Bush and the Republicans in Congress repeatedly gave voters goodies without paying for them: tax cuts without tax reform, subsidised prescription drugs without Medicare reform, and so on. Mr Obama must not make the same mistake. His stimulus plans may include cherished giveaways such as tax credits for low-paid workers, expanded unemployment insurance benefits, and investments in alternative energy. [NOT] All have their merits; all will also increase the hole in the books. Despite some earnest waffle about addressing the long-term fiscal challenge, Mr Obama has been short on specifics.”

The Bush Affirmative Action Mortgage Program

Affirmative Action, Bush, Constitution, Economy, Founding Fathers, Private Property, Ron Paul, Socialism

I began this thread, “NO Small ‘r’ republicans In The House,” with a visceral response to Republican Fred Thompson’s sudden discovery of the principles of fiscal responsibility—principles he said very little about during his bid for the nomination of his party.

More accurately, if Fred had spoken about spending and the Republican Party losing its way—the cliché those charlatans adopted—it was in the vaguest of terms, never confessing to the specific policy catastrophes he regretted and would reverse. War, the thing that propelled the country into debt, was just dandy, and “let’s have more of it.”

Myron has forwarded me Rep. Paul’s splendid response to the legislation known as the “American Dream Downpayment Act. “HR 1276” has exacerbated what Steve Sailer has termed the current “Diversity Recession.” Before I excerpt the entire thing, I’d like to make the following point:

This is not about Ron Paul getting it right on this one issue. Paul has been responding in the House in exactly this fashion for decades. He has never wavered; has always been morally and politically true and correct, always gone straight to the marrow of the argument; articulating what the Constitution and the Founders provided.

Unlike Fred, Paul responded in the heat of the debate, not after the fact; and for the benefit of the People, not for political expediency.

Now over to Ron Paul, and his rapid-fire response to the Bush affirmative action mortgage program:

“The American dream, as conceived by the nation’s founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, oftentimes sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the federal government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.

H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the America people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.

As the great economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out, questions of the proper allocation of resources for housing and other goods should be determined by consumer preference in the free market. Resources removed from the market and distributed according to the preferences of government politicians and bureaucrats are not devoted to their highest-valued use. Thus, government interference in the economy results in a loss of economic efficiency and, more importantly, a lower standard of living for all citizens.

H.R. 1276 takes resources away from private citizens, through confiscatory taxation, and uses them for the politically favored cause of expanding home ownership. Government subsidization of housing leads to an excessive allocation of resources to the housing market. Thus, thanks to government policy, resources that would have been devoted to education, transportation, or some other good desired by consumers, will instead be devoted to housing. Proponents of this bill ignore the socially beneficial uses the monies devoted to housing might have been put to had those resources been left in the hands of
private citizens.

Finally, while I know this argument is unlikely to have much effect on my colleagues, I must point out that Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from one American and redistribute it to another. Legislation such as H.R. 1276, which takes tax money from some Americans to give to others whom Congress has determined are worthy, is thus blatantly unconstitutional.

I hope no one confuses my opposition to this bill as opposition to any congressional actions to ensure more Americans have access to affordable housing. After all, one reason many Americans lack affordable housing is because taxes and regulations have made it impossible for builders to provide housing at a price that could be afforded by many lower-income Americans. Therefore, Congress should cut taxes and regulations. A good start would be generous housing tax credits. Congress should also consider tax credits and regulatory relief for developers who provide housing for those with low incomes. For example, I am cosponsoring H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which provides a tax credit to developers who construct or rehabilitate low-income housing.

H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.”