Category Archives: Reason

Obamanomics: Me, My Minions & YOUR Money

Barack Obama, Debt, Economy, Government, Political Economy, Reason, Taxation, The State

“Obama: U.S. economy cannot afford [a government] shutdown.” Unless the government continues “making key investments in things like education, infrastructure [and] innovation,” we won’t “win the future.” [Transcripts]

This dyed-in-the-wool statist needs the aid of Lego or some sort of pop-up children’s model to figure out that dolling out unemployment benefits, state aid, and government jobs programs, all necessitate the seizure of private wealth through taxing, borrowing, and printing paper.

That cannot create wealth! The fact that some individuals will get wealthy or be “helped” leaves out the unseen; the overall poverty and misery he, his minions and their schemes create.

There is no big secret about “creating” jobs. Government can’t do it. Unless it sucks more capital and credit out of the private economy, it has only the capacity to consume wealth, not create it.

Here’s a simple, crude model for Obama the statist. Play with it with the First Girls. Recommend it to your Fabian friends, Mr. president:

Put 10 blocks in box A. Take 5 blocks out of box A and place them in box B. The owner of box A is 5 blocks poorer, the owner of box B is 5 blocks richer. Total number of blocks: still 10. Total blocks added (or wealth created): 0.

Come on BO, you can do it.

The best BO can do is take a hike; go on a 4-year vacation; walk the plank; just GET OUT OF THE WAY!

No To Strafing Libya

Foreign Policy, John McCain, Military, Neoconservatism, Reason, UN, War

“No-Fly Zone” is one of those Orwellian coinages; it conjures a protective shield from high-above. But why not ask the Iraqis about this manna from the heavens? Before the US invaded Iraq, it had been bombing the place illegally—and immorally—over the unilaterally established No-Fly Zone. Not such a comfort if you’re on the ground. I’ll give the Obama Administration this: at least one of its officials has called a spade a spade. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush era, has explained what a “No-Fly Zone” over Libya actually entails (See CBS):

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.” He added that it couldn’t be done by a single aircraft carrier off the coast. “It’s a big operation in a big country,” Gates said. … In other words, there is no need to establish a no-fly zone, at least for now, and no desire within the military to do it period. The U.S. military has long experience with no-fly zones — more than a decade over Iraq — and knows what it takes, not just jets but tankers and early warning aircraft.

The neoconservatives were champing at the bit to take the battle for Libya away from the Libyan people and put it where it belongs: the US military. Steven Hayes of the Weekly Standard made a weak case on FoxNews. Essentially, the US needed to quickly and self-righteously compensate for its lackluster reaction (here’s mine) to the Egyptian revolt.

Fumed McMussolini: “We are spending $500 billion not counting Iraq and Afghanistan on our nation’s defense. Don’t tell me we can’t do a no-fly zone over Tripoli. (FoxNews) Impeccable reasoning, as always, from the senator. To wit, even if the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were essential to the defense of the realm—and they are certainly not-–why does it follow that Libya is too?

Sen. John McCain should know a thing or two. In all, he lost five jets during his time. (As Steve Sailer once quipped, “To lose one plane over Vietnam may be regarded as a heroic tragedy; to lose five planes here and there looks like carelessness.”)

There’s one more pesky detail. CBS again: “Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the same subcommittee that the Pentagon has no confirmation that Libyan strongman Muammar al Qaddafi is using his air force to kill civilians.”

Fibbing our way into occupying a country: Remind me why that sounds familiar.

UPDATE II: Media’s Sickening Sentimentality On Egypt

Conspiracy, Government, Iraq, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Middle East, Reason

The following is an excerpt from my new WND.COM column, “Media’s Sickening Sentimentality On Egypt”:

“… I’ve finally figured out what it was that repulsed me so about American opinion-makers’ slobbering response to [the revolt that began in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, and swept the Egyptian president, Mohammed Hosni Mubarak, from office.]

It was not so much that the media ignored the likely possibility that democracy in a country that has become progressively more Islamic since the 1950s might not have a happy ending.

It was not that the media pretended that the Muslim Brotherhood, also the “best organized opposition force in the country,” would not field a viable presidential candidate.

It was not that, in their jubilation, Anderson Cooper (CNN), Neil Cavuto (Fox News) and Christiane Amanpour (ABC) failed to mention the precedent set in Lebanon, where Hezbollah has deployed the democratic process to get the better of the country’s Maronite Christians.

It was not even the fact that the journalistic imperative to provide nuance, detail, and an economic and historic backdrop to the unfolding events was replaced, by the journalistic jet-set, with the telegenic drama of the man on the street.

None of this bothered me as much as the patronizing position these American reporters adopted; the neat bifurcation they managed to maintain between “Us” (the “free” men and women of America) and “Them” (those pathetic, shackled Egyptians).

The fact is that the heroic movement for democracy in Egypt dovetails with an ongoing flirtation with fascism in the U.S.; the twilight of individual sovereignty in the U.S. contrasts with its rise in Egypt. …

Read the complete column, “Media’s Sickening Sentimentality On Egypt,” now on WND.COM.

UPDATE I (Feb. 18): To the letter writer below: I am not a conspiracy theorist. Here is a post that explains why conspiracy is usually irrational.

“The premise for imputing conspiracies to garden variety government evils is this: government generally does what is good for us (NOT), so when it strays, we must look beyond the facts—for something far more sinister, as if government’s natural venality and quest for power were not enough to explain events. For example, why would one need to search for the “real reason” for an unjust, unscrupulous war, unless one believed government would never prosecute an unjust war. History belies that delusion.” …

UPDATE II (Feb 19): Daine: No; there are no conspiratorial. What we have are The Takers-–tax consumers—who want the Makers—the so-called rich—to support their parasitical life style. And the Über-parasites, the politicians, who make the most of this human nature.

The CBOafs And Tax Cuts

Debt, Economy, Political Economy, Private Property, Reason, Taxation, The State

The prediction of the CBOafs (The Congressional Budget Oafs) with respect to the “cost” of tax cuts is only as good as their premise, which is faulty. That premise is that property stolen by the state from its rightful owners (taxpayers) will be used to pay down the debt and the deficit incurred by the same band of brigands.

And CBOafs will fly. (Apologies, by the way, to bandits for comparing them to government officials. As one libertarian wag once pointed out, highway robbers are fairer and more benevolent than government, because they rob you once, usually, and then leave you be.)

As the Congressional Budget Office warned today, “Last month’s bipartisan tax cut legislation will drive the government’s deficit to a record $1.5 trillion this year.” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/26/federal-deficit-hit-trillion-budget-office-projects/)

In logic, a conclusion can be correct and untrue at once. The debt will go up—not because of tax cuts, but despite of them.

No matter how much these highway robbers take from the creators of wealth, the debts they incur will only go up. The lesson? Money is always safest with those who make it.