Category Archives: Democrats

UPDATED: Economic Apocalypse Now

America, Constitution, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul

The following is from “Economic Apocalypse Now,” my latest WND.COM column:

“… On reflection, the U.S. Treasury takes in enough loot to pay down the interest on the debt as well as a portion of the principal. Matching federal spending with federal revenue: what a concept! And what a tonic to our moribund economy that would be!

To the soul of the subject: The engorged organisms (Anthony D. Weiner is a sample) that currently control the economy from D.C. can discharge their responsibility to creditors without authorizing more borrowing. To do so, however, they will have to cease their many unconstitutional endeavors and break the promiscuous promises they’ve made to certain voters at the expense of the vassals, out of whose hides these ‘promises’ are carved.

As it stands, Republicans – and a few Democrats, one of whom has even cosponsored an amendment to cap federal spending – have done no more than perform a budgetary Bonnie and Clyde: If Democrats want to continue the heist and run deficits and debts to eternity, they will need to promise – “nudge-nudge, nudge-nudge; know what I mean? know what I mean?” – budget cuts, preferably in the trillions. Or introduce, not necessarily pass, a balanced-budget amendment….”

Read more: “Economic Apocalypse Now.”

My new book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, is now available from Amazon. A Kindle version should be on offer by next week.

UPDATE (June 5): Rand Paul:

“On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day. So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.…Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem. If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have a $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.…I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts, and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said $500 billion is not enough. And they’re right. $500 billion is a third of one year’s problem. Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.” —Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the Senate floor, March 9, 2011

Pay attention to how the same self-anointed policemen of libertarianism—the tinny ideologues who’ve never reflected authentically American libertarianism—have taken it upon themselves to purge Rand Paul.

On the positive side, it seems like Beltway libertarians such as the author of this fair-minded piece have learned from the mistake they made when they reflexively panned Rand’s father, Ron Paul.

Debunking The Debt-Default Hoax

Debt, Democrats, Economy, Politics, Reason

David Henderson of EconLog, for the Library of Economics and Liberty, debunks the nonsensical (and irrational) notion that not raising the debt-ceiling will result in the US defaulting on its debt. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner might be as gormless as his boss, since he has confused “debt obligations” with “other expenditures.”

As U.S. Senator Pat Toomey explained, in a January 19 Wall Street Journal op/ed, “the amount of money required to continue to make payments on all the U.S. government debt is a small fraction of the amount of revenue the U.S. government raises.”

Henderson again: “On car payments and student loan and credit card payments, Geithner is right. But on insurance premiums and utility payments, he’s wrong. Those are not typically debt obligations. Geithner is effectively saying that if the government wants to spend x and has only enough money to spend 0.67x, then not spending on the other 0.33x is a failure to keep an obligation. In a political sense, that might be: the government has made a lot of spending promises to a lot of people. But in an economic sense, it’s not. On the narrow issue of whether failure to raise the debt limit would necessarily mean U.S. government default on its debt, Toomey is right and Geithner is wrong.”

Facebook Forced To Fawn Over Beltway Bosses

Barack Obama, Business, Democrats, Fascism, Government, Regulation, Republicans, The State

Had Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook—which we all use to such great advantage—neglected to schmooze Washington, one of this or the next administration’s top dogs (Republicans are no better than Democrats in persecuting business) would pick-up the scent and give chase. Why? Because we labor under a system “in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation.” So wrote the Tannehills in The Market for Liberty.

Fascism, in short.

Duly, Facebook now has a new Washington office. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“… Facebook is still trying to find a path to Washington, where the company has only a fledgling lobbying operation, even though it finds its privacy policies under increasing scrutiny and is trying to navigate a politically sensitive expansion into China.

In seven years, Facebook has risen from a tiny start-up to an Internet power with a potential market value estimated at more than $50 billion. Now an online forum with more than 600 million users, Facebook faces growing pressure from lawmakers and regulators concerned about the way it uses personal information shared by its users. [Yeah, right; the Big Bosses only want what’s best for us.]

At the same time, the company is confronting questions about how it will handle its role as a global public square for dissidents if it enters China and other countries with little tolerance for dissent. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal about its approach abroad, Facebook officials in Washington suggested the company might be willing to play by China’s rules—a stance that could raise hackles in Congress.

Until lately, Facebook has spent very little money in Washington, even by Silicon Valley’s frugal standards. The company’s outlays on lobbying totaled $351,000 last year, federal records show. That’s a fraction of the amount spent by other technology giants, including Google Inc.’s $5.2 million and Microsoft Corp.’s $6.9 million.”

[SNIP]

Any serious student of economics knows that regulation hinders wealth creation, often forcing the entrepreneur to replace viable, voluntary trades and transactions with bureaucratic, politicized decision making. Rather than concentrate on satisfying and protecting his users on Facebook, Zuckerberg, is now compelled to divert resources from customer service and technical innovation into navigating the bureaucrat’s tax and regulatory laws.

BHO’s Never-Never Debt-Payment Plan (Comments Section Restored)

Barack Obama, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Government, Individual Rights, Military, Political Economy, Taxation, Welfare

When President Obama mouths off about a “free society,” you know that the tokenism will be followed by a list of “liberties” that takes the “vision thing” away from private individuals, and leaves it to souped-up civil servants and voracious bureaucrats. After BHO took great care to tether his “vision” of America to the size of state social programs, here is what the president’s vague, debt-reduction plans entail. A “more balanced approach,” he called it, of “$4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.” Or, the Never-Never scheme. [Transcript]

It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

Meaningless so far.

Next in BHO’s noncommittal outline is a mention of the giant defense budget. No specifics are offered. And a centerpiece of the promise to get serious about such cuts is this cunning catch: cuts are in future spending.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.
Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

[SNIP]

Nothing ventured, a lot gained is the (mangled) maxim Obama follows.

You’ll buy BOH’s “third step,” which “is to further reduce health care spending in our budget,” if you were one of those people who bought the novel idea that an enormous entitlement program, as Obamacare is, will drastically reduce the deficit and debt. The poster person for this mathematical improbability was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Finally, “the fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code,” preached the president. By which he and his menagerie of morons mean not to shorten the tax code to one page, and both reduce and flatten individual and corporate rates—but to sock it to the rich.

Reduction of government debt, in Obama’s perverse moral universe, translates into an increase in state-sanctioned theft.

[My appreciation goes to the New York Times, one of the few outlets that provides transcripts of anything, these days.]

UPDATED: I’m sorry comment section was disabled. it was unintentional. It is restored. Thanks, IronGalt, for the alert.