Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Posts Tagged ‘truth’

The Ryan Plan – A Deeply Flawed Compromise

In Economics, Political Critique on April 17, 2011 at 10:38 pm

The Wall Street Journal is correct about President Obama and the poison he’s poured into the dialogue.  (See editorial here)  However, the Ryan plan is part of the problem, too.

Ryan’s plan is akin to something that, say, Bill Clinton could have proposed in 1996.  It does not contain a single clear statement of principals that could distinguish it from any other partisan economic plan.  “Economic plan” – that phrase alone tells us all we need to know, doesn’t it?

Ryan’s plan is merely a collection of compromises and marginally different government solutions that MAY result in there being a smaller government – until another Nancy Pelosi Congress undoes it all again.  The Ryan Plan contains no rational for smaller government or any defense of lower taxes for the sake of making men more free – it suggests small government and lower taxes are mere policy preferences that will accomplish some preferred economic outcome or another.  That is NOT the way a free people ought to be governed.  It is not what our founding fathers envisioned for their posterity.  It is not the government men and women have died to preserve.

When we argue on such terms, government wins.  If instead we use individual liberty and freedom as the moral rational and basis for a small government with limited powers, lower taxes, etc., we have a winning argument.  When the GOP says “we have to tax the rich less because they create jobs,” they’re merely make another rebuttable statement, adding to the cacophony – whoever shouts last or loudest wins the public’s attention, and defending ‘the rich’ is drowned out by ‘help your fellow man.’

Defending freedom and individual liberty, a man’s right to dispose of his income and wealth as he sees fit, not based on some split-the-difference compromise between John Boehner and Barack Obama, will gain support of Americans.  Vowing to fight Barack Obama in order to take slightly less money from the rich and spend it differently is not an inspirational platform.


Freedom, not ‘who wins?’ in the Middle East

In foreign policy, Opinion, Political Critique on February 23, 2011 at 9:55 am

The President (and most of the rest of the pundits and opinion leaders) continue to hedge on the question of who should lead Egypt or Libya or Saudi Arabia.  That’s been our mistake for 30 years.  We should not be on the side of any regime or faction or mob.  We may have to deal with facts, but we don’t have to support evil.

Choose Freedom every time, then we’re right even if we don’t win a given battle.  The WAR is about freedom, not the next election or change in power in Egypt or China or Korea.  Ronald Reagan could not be sure what type of government Lech Walesa would establish in Poland, but he made it clear that a government that fostered freedom and individual rights would get support from the USA.


Wisconsin: Upon reflection, it’s not the Unions’ fault, is it?

In Economics, Opinion, Political Critique on February 22, 2011 at 5:11 pm

We need a better brand of politicians.

Let’s look at Wisconsin and the battle royale Governor Walker is up against.  Let’s finally place the blame where it belongs – vote buying, career-enhancing, perpetual politicians

For years, the governor’s predecessors had a cozy little thing going with the unions – they bought political support with tax-payer money in the form of juicy compensation for union members.  But since those same elected officials had promised voters they would keep taxes low, they had sold their souls twice.  Then the lies started to cover it up.

First, they gave the union workers IOUs instead of cash:  exorbitant pension benefits, ‘free’ health care, excessive paid vacation, sick leave, birthdays off,  etc.  The union bosses collected their dues up front, of course, and the union members took home the promise of gold in the future.  The second lie compounded the problem; those same politicians knowingly under-funded the pension plans to hide the cost of the IOUs from the voters.  Then they fudged the calculations when testing whether the ‘lock-box’ into which they were supposed to be putting the money would earn enough investment returns to cover the promises.  (Ergo the term ‘unfunded pension obligations.’)

Now, the promises have piled up too high, and the calculations can’t be fudged enough to hide the lies that have accumulated over decades of irresponsible (fraudulent?) management of the government fisc.  The fiduciaries of the pension funds – elected and appointed officials – have been caught in their malfeasance.  And, those perpetrators, having moved on to lucrative lobbying jobs or other post-retirement positions, have left the likes of Governor Walker to tell the voters and union members the cold, hard truth.

UH, we’re broke!

And that’s just the bad news.  The worse news is that the same thing is going on with Social Security (and Medicare, unemployment insurance, and Medicaid, too, by the way).  There is not a single lock-box, Al Gore.  Teachers, and the other union pensioners who are exempt from Social Security (yes, that’s correct – they have a separate system) are experiencing exactly what the rest of the US population is going to realize as soon as someone tells the truth.  One wonders, which politician has the guts to do what Governor Walker is doing when, instead of a few thousand protestors, it’s a few million people who are told ‘we can’t keep the promises we made to you.’  How many people will fit on the Mall?  How many gun-toting retirees does the Dome Room hold?

If that truth isn’t told soon, it will end this nation.

It won’t be easy.  Hell, it will be hellish.  Someone has to tell the truth soon.  I know where Americans stand in matters of truth or lies.  Where does you favorite politician stand when it comes to telling the truth?

Government Spending and Egypt

In Economics, Financial, Opinion, Political Critique on February 14, 2011 at 1:04 pm

The Obama administration claims to look for ways to control spending, to control the national debt – some day in the future, after it’s done ‘investing’ our money for us.


The discussion (noise) about spending in the federal government is spoken in code, isn’t it? Nothing makes any sense to me, and my English is pretty good.  Here’s a translation of the $3.7 Trillion budget discussion.

Government officials, Republican and Democrat, have concluded that the only good spending is government spending, since that is the only kind that results in the accumulation of more power in the hands of 535 men and women.

How does Egypt come into the picture?  Hosni Mubarak did not continue to siphon money from the Egyptian economy after he had X-Teen billion $s in the bank so that he could be more fabulously rich.  In truth, he continuted the theft to broaden his reach, to increase his power over the apparatus that ruled every facet of Egyptian life.
Back in the USA — $3.7 Trillion divided by 535 is approximately $7 Billion.  We have 535 Hosni Mubarak’s in the US Congress, and their job is handing out – each of them – $7 Billion, every year.

The same desire that drove Mubarak, the same all-consuming thirst for control, drives Washington, DC.  The spending machine gets bigger and bigger by the day, it feeds lobbyists, union officials, campaing consultants, media trainers, congressionial staffers aspiring to be on TV, the compliant media machine, and on and on . . . NO ONE represents the tax-payer in Washington; the entire conglomerate feeds off of government spending, and it has to enlarge itself constantly or it starves.

Defeating that beast is the challenge of Americans. Unfortunately the so-called “campaingn finance” laws make it virtually impossible to mount an effort to fight the party machines, because it is illegal to accumulate the resources (i.e. money) necessary to buy a big enough megaphone to be heard over the above-mentioned noise.

Take a look:

There is an answer and when we get enough voices to join us we will announce it, and the unConstitutional FEC laws will not stand.

Egypt, Freedom, America – (Cont’d)

In foreign policy, Opinion, Political Critique on February 14, 2011 at 10:33 am

Obama administration supporters, among them Rep. John Boehner in his attempt to be civil and bi-partisan, one supposes, are lining up to tell us how well things have turned out in Egypt.  The outcome is a good one according to this group of cheerleaders.

How do they know?  To borrow a phrase from George F. Will, “how do they know what happens after what happens next?”

A military led by men who grew wealthy off the graft of Mubarak is now in control, because a relatively peaceful mob forced a tyrant to run for his life – don’t be fooled into thinking he woke up on Friday and said “Ya know, that democracy thing might work – let’s give it a try.”  No.  He fled for fear of being beheaded.  No man who holds complete power for 30 years hands over that power because, suddenly, a better idea comes along.

And our foreign policy establishment wants credit for watching it happen.  They want credit for standing on the sideline, not taking a position and letting nature take its course.  Indeed, they want praise.  I am looking for something to praise….but, praise for what?  No one knows what is in store for Egypt and to praise this temporary calm in the storm is to reveal an immature world-view and an adolescent’s understanding of  what being “on the right side of history” means.

To coin a phrase, making history takes a long time – and there is no micowave.  We don’t know if the Egyptian mess will end nicely or with brutality.  We do know the situation is delicate; we know events can turn momementum for or against freedom at any moment, and that, more often than not, it is the latter.  So, the cheering is premature and short-sighted and is a distraction from the strategic contingency planning that should be occupying the time of the cheerleaders.

Saying over and over that we are for an “orderly transition to free and fair elections” is not a policy, nor is it a strategy.  It’s barely a good slogan.  For what purpose and with what power are the winners of such an election put into office?  To implement the “legitimate wishes of the people.”?  What does that mean – what is the context – what powers will that government have?  Might the government demand that all property is deeded over to the state to be parceled out in equal amounts to all natural-born Egyptians?  Might that government demand that all men should stop protesting in favor of going home and doing the dishes?

In Egypt, there is nothing, NOTHING, pointing in the direction of a constitutionally-based, democratically-elected government that protects ‘certain unalienable’ individual rights.  Short of that, nothing matters – short of that, any temporary calmness is mere prelude to a different tyranny.  Until the United States makes it clear that we are available to help build the foundations for that outcome – a building process that could take a generation – we are not being helpful, we are being spectators, hoping that none of the blood sloshes over the barricades and onto our shores.


Egypt, Freedom, America – what are we for?

In foreign policy, Opinion on February 11, 2011 at 9:12 am

In Egypt, what outcome does America support?  Are we for Mubarak?  His hand-picked VP?  The Muslim Brotherhood?  The mob in the street?  Some sect or other party we have no way of knowing?  Santa Clause?

The answer – none of the above.  America is for freedom.  America is for the truth.  It seems that the Obama administration is trying to predict the outcome in Egypt so we can be seen to have supported the winner of the fight for power – trying to be “on the right side of history,” that trite phrase the keep trotting out to sound smart.  [CLICK below to read MORE] Read the rest of this entry »

I’ll risk it; An unhedged opinion about Abortion

In Opinion on February 8, 2011 at 10:26 pm

Recently, on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow did a hard-hitting story on abortion, noting with shock that some Republicans in the state house of Wyoming had the gall to promote ‘pro choice’ policies.

Two questions:

1.     Is a fetus alive; is ‘it’ a life?

2.     Is the ‘choice’ a woman faces when she elects to abort a pregnancy a personal choice that is morally and ethically significant?

Unless your answer to both of those questions is the same, you’re having an argument with yourself about what you believe, and I’ll CHOOSE to stay out of it; I can’t argue against both you – I’m outnumbered. [Click below to read MORE] Read the rest of this entry »

Another distortion from the Left about tax policy

In Economics, Opinion on February 8, 2011 at 10:19 pm

The left is crowing about the fact that “tax payments are at a 60-year low” (Ed Schultz, MSNBC).

As a percentage of GDP, tax collections are indeed down.  And, as a percentage of the distance to the sun measured in miles, 2010 is smaller than 2011.  Mathematically true, both of those statements.

But an important fact gets in the way of their celebration, their attempt to portray President Obama as a low-tax president.  Government spending is at a post-World War II high at approximately 25%.  Someone has to pay off the debt that is incurred to pay for that spending, so it’s a lie to say that because we collected less of the money this year, we didn’t tax America as much.

The truth is, EVERY dollar of government spending is a TAX – we either pay it now or your progeny pay it later.  Don’t be fooled.  More spending is higher taxation; it means the government is or will be taking more of your money from you; it means less freedom.


ObamaCare vs. Freedom

In Opinion, Recommended Reading on February 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Deborah Sloan form American Thinker posts this lively and substantive defense of truth and freedom in the wake of Judge Vinson’s finding that the individual mandate hinges on powers not granted the government in the constitution.

ObamaCare vs. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Any “right” that imposes an obligation on another man can only be ‘exercised’ by use of force.  The granting of any such ‘right’ must be accompanied by a gun, and in the case of health care law, that gun is in the hands of the President of the United States and his delegates.  May God save us all from such acts of tyranny.

Freedom, our Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment from our creator, is our only CURE.


Anesthetics, Job Growth and The Bazooka

In Economics, Financial, Opinion on February 5, 2011 at 4:46 pm

Notwithstanding that none of them actually say this, a read of the books and reports about the financial panic of fall 2008 leads to this conclusion: the capital markets will remain relatively stymied and stagnant until they are freed of government intervention and arbitrariness. “Saving” GM and AIG and similar acts that purported to prevent or eliminate the pain of failed business plans are the equivalent of giving the financial system anesthesia. When the drug wears off, unless the disease has been cured, the pain returns and is usually worse. That’s where the US economy is headed. Government actions are propping up the price of certain assets and securities, but government actions are driving down the value of those assets and securities, particularly in the real estate sector. When price finds value, as the market forces say it must, it will be a steep and painful fall that will destroy trillions of dollars in wealth.

Markets seize up due to what has been called ‘regime risk,” and that is the primary cause of the loss of value – the lack of liquidity; money is not flowing to its most productive, profitable uses.  Uncertainty in the rules of the road paralyzes the market, robbing it of one of its key supporting characteristics – the truth. Other risks can be assessed and quantified; regime risk can not be.  When capital seeks safety, risky, innovative ventures starve, and we get lackluster job growth.

To get a sense of why the investors are reticent to bet on the future, one might read Hank Paulson’s book On the Brink. It is a confessional about how he, among other abuses of power, scared Congress into giving him a “bazooka” so he would have enough power to “save the financial system as we know it” (and feed the victims to whichever bank or crony was on the right side of the conference table). That kind of arbitrary, extra-legal behavior by the government makes market participants keep their wealth in protected, safe investments, rather than deployed in risk-taking, innovative ventures. None of the capital market’s participants who are not ‘lobbied-up’ will step up to the black jack table so long as the politicians are in the back room deciding with the lobbied-up crowd whether sometimes the dealer’s 23 beats 21.

Oh, and now the “other” team has the bazooka, a development that Mr. Paulson reveals that he does not appreciate. He writes that he was surprised when candidate Obama, previously having been so engaging during the 2008 campaign, stopped talking to Mr. Paulson the day after winning the election. DUH, Mr. Secretary; the bazooka conveys with the presidency. “What use are you to me now?” was President-elect Obama’s clear message to outgoing Secretary Paulson, and poor Hank had no idea he’d done it to himself.