The blind loyalty to power is a scary proposition, and nowhere more evident than in the response to my recent Star Tribune commentary on the 'real Roosevelts' and the abuse of executive power. Normally I wouldn't bother with the Strib comment board, but the sheer inanity of the critics was too much to bear. My last back and forth is below and here's the link to the original piece: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/293073131.html.
"Oh gee, I get it...you can go on forever with these comment boards. Well then, let's consider Madison's point that the Constitution was "not a general grant, out of which particular powers are excerpted--it is a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general mass in other hands." And that's why, boys and girls, the 'necessary and proper' clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8) specifically refers to the federal govt. acting upon the 'powers vested by this Constitution' and why numerous court opinions have refused to reduce the document, in Jefferson's words, to a 'single phrase.' Nice try.
As to the economic dilettantes out there, go back and read what the New Dealers were saying about the post-war economic outlook before you start digging yourselves in a deeper hole. Without priming the pump of the war machine, the economy was destined for calamity, or so they said (would you like the quotes?). Of course, as in the recession of '20-21, when the feds quit crowding out the private sector, why, it predictably flourished.
Lord, if economies collapsed each time prices fell, every correction would lead to a depression. No, markets clear and the 'animal spirits' thrive--if there's an incentive for the supply side (see Say, Mill, et al...you'll have to look 'em up).
You see, the little problem with 'demand side' economics (Keynes WAS for immediate consumption, which is why he famously said, 'in long run, we're all dead...) is something economists call 'opportunity cost' (I even remember that from economics in college...oh, remind me, if I ever start touting my academic credentials just yell stop...it's sure sign you've lost the argument); if you tax or borrow for govt. to spend, then the private sector can't spend (or loan) what's taken from them. I'd give you tutorial on monetary expansion and the boom and bust cycle, but it's fairly clear you're not ready for that.
I used to think a lot of callers in the talk radio circuit didn't know what they were talking about, but they've got nothing on the Strib comments board..."
Feel free to join in, but I warn you, these knee-jerks have absolutely no regard for facts or reason when it comes to justifying the state.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
The Liberal Frauds
One would think by now that listening to lear-jet liberals denounce other people's energy consumption and wealth would strike most folks as about as reasonable as taking diet advice from Michael Moore. Alas, leftist hypocrisy goes on unabated--and unscrutinized by those intrepid watchdogs in the media. Why what's next, the lead anchor at NBC Nightly News lying to us?
Mr. Moore (see http://www.mooreexposed.com) may indeed be the poster child for 'do what I say, and not what I do,' but the fact is most contemporary liberals suffer from an acute credibility crisis simply because they demand of others what they are quite obviously unwilling to do themselves.
For example, whether Al Gore is the world's first 'carbon billionaire' or not, it's fairly evident he's made a boatload of money talking about rising sea levels from global warming. But as the Tennessee Center for Policy Research noted some time ago (and unchallenged by the then couple, Mr. and Mrs. Gore), the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house consumed over 220,000 kilowatt-hours--20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. Perhaps the globe-trotting Mr. Gore has changed his ways, but given the cost of private jets these days, it's doubtful.
And it's not just climate deniers' (it's actually getting cold outside, but they won't admit it) chief cheerleader, Mr. Gore. Consider Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., last seen blocking a wind project off the coast of Hyannis Port while imposing the unsightly and ineffective energy scam on the rest of us. Or Tom Steyer, California's wealthy political activist spending millions to elect green politicians from a fortune he made investing in, well...fossil fuels.
Then of course there are the Democratic 'redistribute somebody else's wealth' crusaders--many of whom are well-to-do. To wit, when Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr. aren't advocating an increase in the estate tax, they're busy setting up their own foundations with tax-deductible charitable contributions in order to avoid or lesson, you guessed it, the estate tax. Buffet, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has gone so far as to admit that “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate...on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Bully for him--except that he's a champion of 'taxing the rich.' The total philosophical bankruptcy in all of this is that Messrs. Buffet, Gates, Gore & Steyer (sounds like a bad law firm) could eradicate poverty across the nation if they simply took a vow of poverty themselves by divesting their own fortunes completely. But they don't; instead they insist that others pay higher taxes. Seriously, it's as if they're saying, 'well, look, I believe in helping the poor, but not unless you do it first.' Who, but the most conniving cynic, thinks this way? If you really believe in doing good, why would you wait for others?
Even on weightier matters of personal safety or war, the left is not to be believed. After all, how easy is it to be in favor of gun control while your armed body guards stand ready and willing. Honest liberals used to be opposed to war, even when the Communist threat was far higher than today's--but all that changed when they discovered that Islamic fundamentalists weren't towing the liberal line on woman's rights and gay marriage. Now from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria these politically correct warriors are as gung-ho as neoconservative icons like Lindsey Graham, John McCain & Peter King (who have never seen a crisis they didn't want to escalate).
Listening to these do-gooders on public policy has become the functional equivalent of listening to Elmer Gantry evangelize.
Mr. Moore (see http://www.mooreexposed.com) may indeed be the poster child for 'do what I say, and not what I do,' but the fact is most contemporary liberals suffer from an acute credibility crisis simply because they demand of others what they are quite obviously unwilling to do themselves.
For example, whether Al Gore is the world's first 'carbon billionaire' or not, it's fairly evident he's made a boatload of money talking about rising sea levels from global warming. But as the Tennessee Center for Policy Research noted some time ago (and unchallenged by the then couple, Mr. and Mrs. Gore), the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house consumed over 220,000 kilowatt-hours--20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. Perhaps the globe-trotting Mr. Gore has changed his ways, but given the cost of private jets these days, it's doubtful.
And it's not just climate deniers' (it's actually getting cold outside, but they won't admit it) chief cheerleader, Mr. Gore. Consider Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., last seen blocking a wind project off the coast of Hyannis Port while imposing the unsightly and ineffective energy scam on the rest of us. Or Tom Steyer, California's wealthy political activist spending millions to elect green politicians from a fortune he made investing in, well...fossil fuels.
Then of course there are the Democratic 'redistribute somebody else's wealth' crusaders--many of whom are well-to-do. To wit, when Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr. aren't advocating an increase in the estate tax, they're busy setting up their own foundations with tax-deductible charitable contributions in order to avoid or lesson, you guessed it, the estate tax. Buffet, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has gone so far as to admit that “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate...on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
Bully for him--except that he's a champion of 'taxing the rich.' The total philosophical bankruptcy in all of this is that Messrs. Buffet, Gates, Gore & Steyer (sounds like a bad law firm) could eradicate poverty across the nation if they simply took a vow of poverty themselves by divesting their own fortunes completely. But they don't; instead they insist that others pay higher taxes. Seriously, it's as if they're saying, 'well, look, I believe in helping the poor, but not unless you do it first.' Who, but the most conniving cynic, thinks this way? If you really believe in doing good, why would you wait for others?
Even on weightier matters of personal safety or war, the left is not to be believed. After all, how easy is it to be in favor of gun control while your armed body guards stand ready and willing. Honest liberals used to be opposed to war, even when the Communist threat was far higher than today's--but all that changed when they discovered that Islamic fundamentalists weren't towing the liberal line on woman's rights and gay marriage. Now from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria these politically correct warriors are as gung-ho as neoconservative icons like Lindsey Graham, John McCain & Peter King (who have never seen a crisis they didn't want to escalate).
Listening to these do-gooders on public policy has become the functional equivalent of listening to Elmer Gantry evangelize.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
ISIS
So the President wants authority to battle the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and why not? His policies helped create it. As in Libya, where the administration's decision to overthrow a secular Islamic leader gave rise to terrorism in that country, Obama's ill-fated decision to arm the Syrian rebels in order to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad has directly lead to ISIS leaders brandishing American weaponry. Nice.
Of course, if you listen to the unrelenting 'threat of terrorism' campaign by the armchair warriors on cable news, the fault lies in our unwillingness to engage the Middle East. Really? Well, we've spent anywhere from $3 to $6 trillion (depends on whose estimate), lost nearly 5000 American lives, and over 30,000 young men and women will suffer a through a lifetime recovering from their wounds. And after 10 years of war--and a new domestic surveillance apparatus in place--we are no closer to eliminating terrorism than we were before 9-11. In fact, as a result of our misguided interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria, we have contributed greatly to the rise of further Islamic extremism by destroying its historic counterweights in the region.
Assad, and yes, Iran, both Shia nations, would gladly destroy these radical Sunni groups within a month--if we would only let them. Shiites are outnumbered 9 to 1 and generally don't export their 'terrorism' worldwide. Sunni extremism, however, is global in nature and its affiliates, whether al Nursah, Al Qaeda or ISIS, are responsible for nearly all of the recent attacks on the West. Alas, America's foreign policy establishment, from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to John McCain and Lindsey Graham, has blindly backed the regimes of Sunni Monarchs for decades. These same folks are now all a twitter over Jordan supposedly getting tough with their fellow Sunni radicals. Don't count on it.
Our putative allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, etc., all have a 'history of directly supporting or at least allowing private funds to flow to terrorist groups,' according to even neoconservative outlets like the National Interest. 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9-11 were Saudis and just this month, the so-called 20th, Zacarias Moussaoui, testified inside federal prison that Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama Bin Laden, received funds from the Saudi royal family.
In fairness to Obama, why he is he being criticized for not doing enough, given Afghanistan, Lybia, and Syria? Only Rand Paul is making any sense of the issue by going after the President for what he has done--but of course the Kentucky Senator is being demagogued by the very same folks who got us into this mess. Funny, I thought conservatives were philosophically opposed to 'government intervention.' Regardless, the fact is we will never be able to solve the problems in the Middle East--nor should we try. Indeed, American foreign policy should follow its own hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.
Of course, if you listen to the unrelenting 'threat of terrorism' campaign by the armchair warriors on cable news, the fault lies in our unwillingness to engage the Middle East. Really? Well, we've spent anywhere from $3 to $6 trillion (depends on whose estimate), lost nearly 5000 American lives, and over 30,000 young men and women will suffer a through a lifetime recovering from their wounds. And after 10 years of war--and a new domestic surveillance apparatus in place--we are no closer to eliminating terrorism than we were before 9-11. In fact, as a result of our misguided interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria, we have contributed greatly to the rise of further Islamic extremism by destroying its historic counterweights in the region.
Assad, and yes, Iran, both Shia nations, would gladly destroy these radical Sunni groups within a month--if we would only let them. Shiites are outnumbered 9 to 1 and generally don't export their 'terrorism' worldwide. Sunni extremism, however, is global in nature and its affiliates, whether al Nursah, Al Qaeda or ISIS, are responsible for nearly all of the recent attacks on the West. Alas, America's foreign policy establishment, from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to John McCain and Lindsey Graham, has blindly backed the regimes of Sunni Monarchs for decades. These same folks are now all a twitter over Jordan supposedly getting tough with their fellow Sunni radicals. Don't count on it.
Our putative allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, etc., all have a 'history of directly supporting or at least allowing private funds to flow to terrorist groups,' according to even neoconservative outlets like the National Interest. 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9-11 were Saudis and just this month, the so-called 20th, Zacarias Moussaoui, testified inside federal prison that Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama Bin Laden, received funds from the Saudi royal family.
In fairness to Obama, why he is he being criticized for not doing enough, given Afghanistan, Lybia, and Syria? Only Rand Paul is making any sense of the issue by going after the President for what he has done--but of course the Kentucky Senator is being demagogued by the very same folks who got us into this mess. Funny, I thought conservatives were philosophically opposed to 'government intervention.' Regardless, the fact is we will never be able to solve the problems in the Middle East--nor should we try. Indeed, American foreign policy should follow its own hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Ode to the Working Man
Isn't it odd how liberals are always talking about the "working man" while doing everything they can to demean him. You know, the fellow who 'clings to religion and guns,' or the philistine who never got his four-year liberal arts degree and thus can't be taken seriously on matters of public policy.
Oh sure, modern day Democrats give lip service to big labor, but data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unions only represent 11.1% of the labor market--and even that is increasingly made up of public sector workers who have little in common with their private sector brethren. No, the left today values the 'social sciences,' not the hard ones. The liberal intelligentsia is made up lawyers, professors, social workers, and movie stars--not the fellow fixing your car.
No doubt all professions have their place, but as Spencer Tracy once said, "Why do actors think they're so God damn important? They're not. Acting is not an important job in the scheme of things. Plumbing is." In the interest of full disclosure, I'd only say Spencer forgot to add talk show hosts and commentators as well.
I was reminded of all this recently when tracking down a faucet repair kit for the kitchen sink, not to mention taking the car in for work. If you want to talk about real talent, take a hard look at the knowledge required to maintain modern machinery. Naturally, those who engineer and design these complex systems are immensely skilled, but I'm talking about the guys and gals on the front lines. The mechanics, the plumbers, the HVAC tech, the lathe operator, and the person behind the counter searching for just the part you need. Of course, don't forget the businesses who employ these folks and stock the company shelves with a precision that would easily confound the average political pundit on the tube.
These, and those who hire and support them, are the 'working' men and woman who make the economy go. So here's to the wholesalers, the jobbers, the dealers and the people they employ. Ain't that America...
Oh sure, modern day Democrats give lip service to big labor, but data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show unions only represent 11.1% of the labor market--and even that is increasingly made up of public sector workers who have little in common with their private sector brethren. No, the left today values the 'social sciences,' not the hard ones. The liberal intelligentsia is made up lawyers, professors, social workers, and movie stars--not the fellow fixing your car.
No doubt all professions have their place, but as Spencer Tracy once said, "Why do actors think they're so God damn important? They're not. Acting is not an important job in the scheme of things. Plumbing is." In the interest of full disclosure, I'd only say Spencer forgot to add talk show hosts and commentators as well.
I was reminded of all this recently when tracking down a faucet repair kit for the kitchen sink, not to mention taking the car in for work. If you want to talk about real talent, take a hard look at the knowledge required to maintain modern machinery. Naturally, those who engineer and design these complex systems are immensely skilled, but I'm talking about the guys and gals on the front lines. The mechanics, the plumbers, the HVAC tech, the lathe operator, and the person behind the counter searching for just the part you need. Of course, don't forget the businesses who employ these folks and stock the company shelves with a precision that would easily confound the average political pundit on the tube.
These, and those who hire and support them, are the 'working' men and woman who make the economy go. So here's to the wholesalers, the jobbers, the dealers and the people they employ. Ain't that America...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)