American Liberty

100% of My Liberal Friends Take Issue With Thomas Sowell

2011-12-28T17:42:00.002-05:00

I saw Dr Sowell's quote in his column this weekend:

Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them -- instead of answering their arguments.

In the past year, I sought to understand the mindset of my more liberal friends. About a year or so ago, I tried to re-read Von Mises' Socialism. The one passage that struck me was his analysis that socialists do NOT want to explain what they are trying to achieve. If people found out, they wouldn't want it.

I sought out my more liberal friends and asked them to explain to me what they stood for. These are generally well educated people, and quite intellectually bright. The first few engaged in lots of back and forth emails, but inevitably I was basically told to shut up and f*ck off. Some were nice about about it, some were not. I argued that I heard more cussing and filth from TV and radio left's than I did from those on the right.

I would tell them I was in favor of the Constitution of the USA, minimal intrusion of government and not in favor of distribution of wealth. One Princeton PhD told me that I could only be judged by how much I gave to charity and paid in Federal taxes!!!

So this week, I forwarded this quote verbatim to about 100 "friends", of which I estimated that 4 or 5 were quite liberal. I wondered what response, if any, I would get. Most said nothing, or said a little ditty.

But the liberals ALL proved Sowell's point:

Here are some quotes:

Besides finding it <the quote> baseless with regard to my actions (what provoked you to send this to me??), the spirit of this quote is insulting, came unprovoked, and under the guise of wishing for a good 2012. In fact, by sending this to me, I would say that your actions are much more in tune with the essence of the quote than mine are. You denigrate the left...

The PhD from Princeton warned me:

Beware Sowell makes no sense if you read carefully his whole article. He is good at uttering random statements, grammatically correct, yet without solid foundation to back them. I see you are continuing to inhale smoke.

A less strident lib:

However, in the political realm, it's the right on the attack in recent years.

I'd like an example. If you want examples on the left, just watch any evening with Rachel Maddow.

Folks: This is a repeat of the 1930's, with socialism having made quit a bit of headway with their agenda. As the economy around the world struggles, those on the left will tell it it is the failure of capitalism that has done it. They won't tell you what they have in store (but just what Obama's actions). They tell you that all we need is a "little more" spending, a "little more" (or a lot more) regulation, and a a lot more taxation .. and life will improve.

How can the cure be the disease?

Defend your freedoms!

The President Does NOT Believe in Capitalism!

2011-12-08T12:05:00.002-05:00

Here is the critical section from Obama's speech in Kansas this week

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.

An excellent follow-up in the American Spectator.

We Have A Community-Organizer-in-Chief, Where's the President?

2011-02-18T08:55:00.000-05:00

I find it hard to refer to Obama as "President", when he is still a "Community Organizer".

According to Wikipedia:

community organizers generally assume that social change necessarily involves conflict and social struggle in order to generate collective power for the powerless.

So you'd think the PRESIDENT of the United States could use his bully pulpit, and its power of persuasion to help tackle state and local government financial problems. After all, if nothing is done, we face a possible collapse of our nation (more on that in a another post..)

But no, if you travel over to BarackObama.com, our President's web site, you will find our President cheering on the masses. He criticizes the Governor:

Republican Governor Walker Scott Walker has proposed a radical plan to take away the collective bargaining rights of public workers. Those who teach and those who plow the snow-filled Wisconsin streets would no longer be able to organize for better working conditions and rights in the workplace.

Since Tuesday, the streets of Madison and the halls of the Capitol building have been filled with thousands of ordinary folks who are sending the strongest message possible to their state legislators—their rights are not up for negotiation.

Organizing for America–Wisconsin, who has been among the most vocal advocates for state employees’ rights, is tweeting live from the rallies and pulling together the voices, videos, and photos of this movement.

Since when have we seen a sitting President back teachers illegally "striking". Where is the leadership, the help in dealing with crushing fiscal problems? Where is the leadership in addressing runaway public pension costs?

Perhaps what we see is what we can expect from a President who received hundreds of millions of dollars from these "public servants". Past SEIU President Andy Stern said in 2009:

We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it.

If Obama wants to be a community organizer, he should resign and carry on the fight. If he wants to be President, he should act like one.

"If We Lose Freedom Here, There's No Place to Escape To"

2011-02-05T04:18:00.000-05:00

In 1962, Ronald Reagan gave a pivotal speech that defined him.

The speech is full of memorable phrases that are as relevant today as when he said them.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

And do you think of Obamacare when he says:

the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now that ObamaCare is Passed, The Disaster in the Bill is Becoming Clear

2010-11-30T03:45:00.000-05:00

Watch:

Another Brick in the Bureaucratic Wall

2010-09-27T12:02:00.000-04:00

I just received this in an email from my broker:

What the 2011 tax changes mean for you.
• When you sell equities (such as stock) acquired in 2011, we will be required to report details about your gain or loss to you and the IRS on Form 1099-B. (Mutual funds, ETFs, fixed income investments, and options will be affected in subsequent years.)

Obama Policies End the American Dream

2010-09-21T05:00:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama's policies are becoming crystal clear. Those policies are shutting down the American Dream, shutting them down in favor of a country that looks less like Capitalism, and more like Marxism.

Obama made his point of view very clear on CNBC''s Town Hall program on Monday 9/20. In response to a question about raising taxes (termed "extending the Bush tax cuts" to deride them), Obama clearly outlined his rationale for raising taxes on "the rich", those families making over $250,000, and keeping cuts to an already lower-tax group:

"You probably didn't get a raise" (i.e. you deserve it, I'm on your side in this class struggle).

"You're more likely to spend it". (Keynesian economics -- we want spenders, not investors).

So this is a clear class-warfare stance: Those who invest must have their money confiscated; we'll give tax breaks to some only if they spend it. (The government will make the investment decisions.) The proletariat will live from pay-check to pay-check and spend all they have. And that is "good", according to Obama.

This is a doctrine straight out of the words of Karl Marx:

Marx argues that in capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit an economic majority (the proletariat). Marx argues that capitalism is exploitative, specifically the way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. Such commodification of human labor according to Marx, creates an arrangement of transitory serfdom. He argued that while the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.

In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

Obama, through his words, clearly sees the world as a struggle of classes, between rich and poor in the United States. He views himself as someone who has been chosen to lead the revolution, as intelligent and benevolent enough to make the tough decisions to fundamentally change America.

Thomas Sowell commented last week on this class warfare and how the Left has twisted words to advance their argument:

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are "the rich" and "the poor." When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing "the rich," they are not even talking about people's wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people's incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years, and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire.

A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up. Similarly, most of the people who are called "the poor" are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of "the rich."

Most of the people in the bottom 20% in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20% than remain in the bottom 20% over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people "rich" and "poor" who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools.

The American Dream, as Dr. Sowell states, is the ability to start poor, work hard, save and invest to build up a nest egg that allows you, perhaps someday, to invest in a business and employ others ... in the process becoming financially well off. It's an ebb and flow ... a process, that relies on your skills and determination.

If the government policy is to ensure that if you have excess income, you spend it, and that investing is bad ... how can anyone climb the ladder of success when Big Government is removing the rungs?

The dream has its foundation in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So why would President Obama "slip" and leave out the "their Creator" in a speech last week?

Back to Marx's view on religion:

Although Marx was intensely critical of institutionalized religion including Christianity, some Christians have "accepted the basic premises of Marxism and attempted to reinterpret Christian faith from this perspective." Some of the resulting examples are some forms of liberation theology and black liberation theology. [Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 17+ years] Pope Benedict XVI strongly opposed radical liberation theology while he was still a cardinal, with the Vatican condemning acceptance of Marxism.

Obama and the people that he surrounds himself with all lean to Marxism, and if allowed to carry on extending their consistent polices, will end the American Dream ... perhaps for our lifetime.

Increasing Executive Power By-Passes Due Process, Threatens Blogger Free Speech

2010-08-29T05:00:00.000-04:00

The Obama administration is accumulating power at an amazing rate, aided and abetted by its complicit Congress, who seems hell-bent on handing over its responsibilities to the Executive branch.

This accumulation of power is un-constitutional, and is quickly reducing our liberties and free speech.

Transfer of Legislative and Judicial powers to the Executive

If you read the bills that are pouring out of this Congress, you will note the way that Progressives bypass the Constitution and public discussion of the contents (See article by Thomas Sowell). These laws (health care, financial reform, etc.) strengthen the power of the Executive by instructing the Government to do 3 things:

Set up a Board, Office or Department to make rules ("Legislative").

Execute against those rules ("Executive").

Prosecute, try and punish people who break the rules ("Judiciary").

So in a single bill, power from the Legislative and Judicial branches passes to the Executive. You might argue that this is how government has worked forever. Wrong! The health care bill created over 150 "Boards, Offices or Departments", and that had never been done since ... you guessed it .. FDR.

This whole process turns the entire political system that created this country upside down!

Take a look at one example:

FCC Fines Firm for Astroturfing

PR firm Reverb Communications was hired to write favorable reviews of iPhone games on Apple's App Store. I don't know about you, but I know that in the anonymous world of the Internet, that anyone can do a review of a product, and I have to take that with a grain of salt -- caveat emptor. In fact, it is why "trust" systems, like that encouraged by eBay and Amazon, add value to reviews. They help you recognize legitimate reviewers, and trusted people, so you can separate them from the author's brother, mother, or PR firm.

The FCC decided (in 2009 - the Age of Obama) to pass a rule that any "Consumer-generated media" would have to disclose whether or not a reviewer had a commercial link to the product/service being reviewed. The FTC can fine you $11,000 (plus injunctions against your future reviewing!) (Read the FTC PR announcement here.)

So in a flash (and I don't recall any public debate, and mention in Congress), the FTC lays down its "guidelines" for free speech for Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements. Yikes! Did they mention Bloggers!?!

So, if a Blogger who works for, say the Democratic National Committee, promotes its product anonymously on a web site, they could be in violation of FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 255. If you read your brother's new book and thought it was great, a nice review could land you an $11,000 fine, if you and your brother have a "material connection".

Would your opinion/review on ePinions.com be a violation? (as ePinions.com pays you and collects money from the advertisers).

What is a product review? Why does the FCC decide that my speech (in this blog, for example) is acceptable , or not?

And how do they suddenly decide they can pass down a fine? Well, to be fair, they state:

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

However, in the Reverb case, Reverb looked for an easier (cheaper) way out, as I am sure you and I would do, when faced with a huge bureaucracy with "unlimited resources" coming at you ...

Reverb agreed to the settlement terms, though the company maintains that it disagrees completely with the FTC's allegations and admits to no wrongdoing. [my emphasis]. "During discussions with the FTC, it became apparent that we would never agree on the facts of the situation," Reverb said in a statement released to MTV Multiplayer. "Rather than continuing to spend time and money arguing, and laying off employees to fight what we believed was a frivolous matter, we settled this case and ended the discussion."

The journalist in ars technica also went on the say:

Still, Reverb's potentially unfair influence on App Store buyers may not be that great. As MTV Multiplayer pointed out, only those that have downloaded a game from the App Store can review it, so it would take serious effort and a lot of paid reviewers to influence its overall rating. If a game is truly awful or truly amazing, the ratings will reflect that fact.

The Harvard Law Review published an opinion on this regulation, calling it unconstitutional.

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revised their Endorsement and Testimonial Guides (Guides) to cover “consumer generated media” such as blogs and other internet media forms. In the interest of providing consumers with full disclosure, the Guides require bloggers to disclose any “material connection[s]” they have with producers of any products that they “endorse” on their blogs. A “material connection” includes not only monetary compensation, but also any free good received by the blogger — even if that good was provided unsolicited, with no conditions attached, for the purpose of allowing the blogger to review the product. Yet a constitutional analysis of unpaid blogger endorsements shows that such endorsements are not commercial speech — which receives reduced constitutional protection — but rather noncommercial speech entitled to full First Amendment protection. Not only do the Guides burden bloggers’ protected speech, they also create an unfair double standard by exempting legacy media from the Guides’ disclosure requirements. Therefore, the Guides should be ruled unconstitutional as applied to bloggers.

Yet, the first test case that the FCC has using this results in a target rolling over. It seems like part of a plan to regulate the Internet.

We should be very concerned about this enormous accumulation of power in an uncontrolled bureaucracy. It threatens our freedoms, and the very foundation of the country.

(Cross posted to http://www.redstate.com/libertyyes/2010/08/29/increasing-executive-power-by-passes-due-process-threatens-blogger-free-speech)

Sowell Ringing Alarm Bells for Liberty!

2010-08-24T09:03:00.000-04:00

Read LibertyYes Daily Tweet Digest

2010-08-20T04:34:00.000-04:00

A neat new service from a Swiss company organzies all the references in tweets and is an EXCELLENT read!

http://paper.li/LibertyYes

2010 Federal Budget Spending

2010-07-26T03:06:00.000-04:00

The President's budget for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

US receipt and expenditure estimates for fiscal year 2010.Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Financial Reform Does Not Reform Freddie and Fannie

2010-07-19T05:00:00.000-04:00

Last week the "financial Reform" bill passed Congress ... but there was no mention of the 2 complicit GSE's, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They have cost $160B so far and will likely cost $1 TRILLION to clean up.

And the people that wrote this new bill? The same people who DENIED over and over again that the GSE's were just fine:

Rep Richard Baker (R-LA) asked in 2003 for more regulation of these corrupt giants. Watch Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) say "We do not have a criss at Freddie Mac, and particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines" [later convicted of fraud, a current Obama advisor] .

Watch Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY) say "there is nothing wrong", "we don't need it [regulation]". Rep Lacy Clay (D-MO) called the hearings a "political lynching of Franklin Raines" (who happens to be an African American). Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) says "I don't see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems."

Watch this if you can stomach the lies!

These same blockers received campaign donations (Obama was #1) from these GSE's. How can we believe anything will change? I don't

Ronald Reagan Discusses Socialized Medicine

2010-07-12T04:00:00.000-04:00

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Listen to the wisdom of Reagan.

Fiscal Insanity from the Economic Intelligentsia

2010-06-30T03:10:00.000-04:00

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you

Rudyard Kipling

So-called "intelligent people" are continuing to call shots and give advice to the US President and Congress that is leading us straight over the financial cliff.

Obama claims that the root causes of our financial crisis are: a) Bush, b) Wall Street, c) Banks, and d) Republicans.

Paul Krugman, like Obama, a Nobel-prize winner (which should say something about his credibility) is a perma-Keynesian who writes for the NY Times. I noted recently that he has been one of the prime proponents of MASSIVE borrowing and spending by the Federal government.

Now on Sunday the 27th, he warned we are entering a Depression. He whines about the lack of spending from government:

"you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy."

Gee Paul, what part of reckless spending don't you understand? He says that not spending is a deliberate mean-spirited act:

"the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times."

It now seems that Krugman, Obama and his merry men are becoming a smaller and smaller voice, as governments all over the world wobble with crushing debts and deficits. Obama encouraged the G20 in Toronto to spend; they told him to pound sand.

Rebuffed, Obama still cannot bring himself to reduce government spending --- rather we will see some wild-ass tax proposals. As far as he is concerned, though federal expenditures are up 21% in the last 2 years, spending isn't the problem. He wants to hike taxes, but knows he hasn't got a chance before the November elections, so he sent a veiled warning from Toronto:

"I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I'm calling their bluff, And we'll see how much of the political arguments they're making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics."

Why wait? Well, he has to wait for his blue-ribbon debt commission to come back (after the election), so he can propose taxes, taxes, taxes .. to save us. But that committee looks like there are some no-nonsense members, like Alan Simpson, who aren't going to pussy foot around -- so that may blow up on Obama.

Of course, the root causes of the financial crises are not, according to the government:

Reckless government spending

Unfunded programs: social security, medicare, prescription drugs

Unfunded government union pensions

A non-transparent and reckless Fed, who is trying experiments never tried before

Freddie and Fannie, encouraged by Congress, backing ridiculous loans to anyone with a dog

And did I mention? reckless government spending

The reality is that we cannot spending our way out of an over-spending problem, regardless of what Nobel-prize winning economists say.

Allan Meltzer writes in today's WSJ: "Why Obamanomics Has Failed:

"Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now."

The solution? Reganomics anyone?

"The contrast with President Reagan's antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates."

Are we too late to following recovery plans like Prices's "Stop Reckless Spending" plan, or Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future"?

I'm afraid we will suffer a lot of pain before then. Mish Sherlock wrote this week that "An Economic Depression is Here". Congress and The Fed are to blame.

Hold tight ... this won't be fun.

How Deep Is the Bottomless Pit of Government Spending?

2010-06-16T08:00:00.000-04:00

Is it a requirement of people who run for public office that they must abandon all sense of fiscal sanity? It would seem so.

A review of the headlines over the past 2 weeks shows us that Forrest Gump was right:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Where do we start?

Governments Borrowing to Pay Debts

What would happen to your family finances if you took out a Home Equity Loan to pay the mortgage? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out .. you will have more debt that you have to pay off down the road. But it seems that governments all over the place have developed this very habit. The Solution to Overspending on Credit? More Credit, of Course.

It started on June 11 when Gov Paterson of New York borrowed $6 Billion from the New York State pension fund to pay ... the New York State pension fund! Talk about dumb! The pension fund plans to earn 8% on its investments, but is willing to lend it to the Government for a mere 4.5% - 5.5%! Sort of stupid .. sort of really corrupt. When the cows come home to roost on this one, God Bless New York!

Even more frightening to us all is the bottomless liability posed by Freddie and Fannie. Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case. Now a Trillion is a lot of money. Rather than collapse these disasters and turn mortgage underwriting and insurance back to the private sector, these living dead will suck the blood out of us for years to come ...

Government Drunk on Spending

I always preface drunken government spending comments with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money.

Want to really get concerned? Take a look at the US Debt Clock. The Total Debt Per Citizen sits at $175,281, or $669,993 per family. Given income per family is only $62,445, it would take 10 years of working just for the government for us to pay of this debt.

Add liabilities of Social Security, Prescription Drugs, Medicare and other unfunded liabilities -- the total liabilities per citizen rises to $352,617. Assets are $235,844. So we are technically bankrupt. We are short $116,773 per man, woman and child in the country!!

Government Ignoring Need to Stop Spending

Encouraged by Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman who wrote even this week: The Bad Logic Of Fiscal Austerity. He argues that borrowing a $1 Trillion and paying the interest is affordable and

not much cost to pay for generating jobs when they’re badly needed and avoiding disastrous cuts in government services.

Ah! The last thing we can do is stop government spending! If in fact government spending was actually positive, then is there a limit? Why not spend as much as we can borrow? (Oops! I think they are already doing that!!) Now don't think you have permission to argue with this Nobel Laureate or the anointed economic elite. You just don't "get it".

During the last 5 years, governments have increased their spending and hiring by leaps and bounds, while their revenues have shrink. According to the Krugman crowd, this makes sense.

Who is Footing the Bill?

But you will pay the bills. I extracted some figures from the Debt Clock to create the following analysis:

Private industry workers (who pay ALL the bills) comprise 51% of all people working, unemployed, retired or working for governments. Government employees, who are 14% of this total, consume over 30% of the GDP. So 1/2 of us have to pay for the other half ... BUT WAIT!

Only 1/2 of us who file tax returns pay federal taxes! If we assume this is evenly distributed among private industry workers, we have 1/4 of the population paying for the largess of government!

I don't think this ends well. It can't. It doesn't make sense. And when you need a Princeton PhD to explain why it does, I know it doesn't.

FTC Proposes to Regulate Internet News!

2010-06-02T05:05:00.000-04:00

Today we take a detailed look at a recent FTC proposal that effectively regulates the news. You can get it here.

Hold onto your copy of the US constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The FTC, packed with Obama socialists, has just published a Discussion Draft on "Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism". These proposals seek to regulate the Internet -- not just access speeds and bandwidth, but the information itself!

Proposal 1: Control the Utterance of Facts

The FTC deplores the fact that copyright does not protect "facts" in news stories, that other organizations can "free-ride" by repeating the facts gathered by newspapers.

Advocates argue “the copyright act allows parasitic aggregators to ‘free ride’ on others’ substantial journalistic investments,” by protecting only expression and not the underlying facts, which are often gathered at great expense. They define parasitic aggregators as those that, without permission, post enough material to render the original news stories redundant. This free-riding undercuts revenue for those who make investments in journalism and undermines their incentive to do so, according to advocates. They suggest that federal hot news legislation could help address revenue problems facing newspapers by preventing this free-riding.

So the first point is : why does the FTC think they have to intervene to help one type of competitor in the media?

They go on to discuss what the moratorium period might be under federalized "hot news" rules -- rules that would prohibit, it would seem, you from tweeting information published by, say, the White House news team. While they discuss a "2 hour" ban --- what would stop politicians and liberal courts from a 2-month ban?? ... making the only facts available from White House trusted sources.

Proposal 2: Limit Search Engine Fair Use of News

To be fair, this argument is balanced, but consider this -- that obscure blog that breaks embarrassing news might not be indexed by the search engine, ensuring that popular sites (Time, Newsweek, New York Time and other left-leaning sites) are the only ones with the "facts".

Proposal 3: License News

Getting a chill yet. They go on to say:

governments have considered how to provide adequate incentives and funding for the news and are exploring, for example, the creation of government-fostered pilot programs to investigate new business models for IP [Intellectual Property] and discourage free-riding.

The notion: If you want to tweet a story, you pay a "micro-payment" back to the originator: the NYT, the White House news machine, etc.

They acknowledge:

A compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct.

So yes, the FTC proposes we tax the dissemination of FACTS, clearly abridging the freedom of speech and the free press.

Proposal 4: Drop Anti-Trust Rule for Newspapers So They Can Collude to Force Consumers to Pay for News

Another chilling concept. So let me count it up so far (and I am only on page 13 of the 47 page report) ... you can't repeat facts, you can't search news, and you have to pay to find news facts ... all under government licence. Now, big news can syndicate their news and prevent anyone from uttering the facts they find!!!

Proposal 5: Provide Government Subsidies to Some News Organizations

Yikes! The FTC comments:

Many people, including journalists, recoil at the thought of government assistance to sustain journalism.

(Me too!) Yet it justifies subsidies with a comment that it has been done and:

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has received direct support for over 40 years.

The FTC report waxes on for pages on the glories and success of Public Broadcasting.

“the fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public… CPB invests in programs and services that are educational, innovative, locally relevant and reflect America’s common values and cultural diversity.”

Can you hear the choirs singing the praises to the glories of PBS, comrade? The FTC moans on ...

The U.S. government’s support for public broadcasting is very small compared to other democratic countries. For example, “if the United States spent at the same per capita level as Canada, our federal commitment would be $7.5 billion.” Per capita spending by Finland and Denmark is approximately 75 times greater.

So the proposal is to provide subsidies (i.e. Place more news organizations under government funding = control).

Subsidies

Fund AmeriCorps Journalism Division. Can anyone say "Socialism youth camp and ministry of information"?

Direct more funds to Public Broadcasting.

Directly fund local news. Now who would hand out the money? Would a non-government supporting blog get funded?

Provide tax credits for hiring reporters.

Provide citizens with a voucher to buy non-profit news! You have to read the entire text to grasp the Orwellian nature of this proposal.

Establish Citizenship News Vouchers. Citizenship news vouchers would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization of their choice. People could indicate on their tax return whether and to which nonprofit organization they want a specific amount (perhaps up to $200) to be donated, but they would not be required to designate a donation. They could split their “federal funds” donation among several different qualifying nonprofit media . Proponents of this approach suggest it would create a funding mechanism to encourage viable independent Internet journalism while avoiding government control or the creation of a bureaucracy that could influence the recipients of the money based on politics. This proposal also could give foundations a role to play. Foundations could provide start-up funding for 3 to 5 years to help new ventures, “and then see if there is popular support for the venture in the form of Citizenship News Vouchers.” If desired, this proposal could be structured to apply to commercial, as well as non-profit, news entities.

Provide grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism. Has anyone seen a journalism school in America that is not far left-of-center?

Provide SBA funds to nonprofit journalism organizations. Can you spell "ACORN"?

Point the Voice Of America at America.

Increase postal subsidies for newspapers.

New Taxes

The FTC paper then rambles into a long discussion of how to tax to pay for "better news".

7% tax on radio and TV revenues! (Watch your cable bill folks!)

5% tax on TVs and radios!

Tax on spectrum auction prices.

2% tax on all advertising!

Another federal 3% tax on cell phone bills!

A Better Society for All

The FTC then waxes on about the best organization structure for news so that it serves

social purposes, such as economic redevelopment or environmental protection.
Some news entities may wish to explore hybrid organizational structures that integrate the pursuit of social purposes with business activities. These organizational designs include, among others, “Flexible Purpose” and “Benefit” corporations and low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs). These hybrid designs may make sense for news entities, because journalism can fit a “social purpose” paradigm – that is, good journalism improves social welfare by educating the public through truthful and insightful reporting.

Gee, is current news un-truthful and not insightful? I seem to find a lot of insight but truth (from NYT, White House, etc) is sometimes hard to divine. Caveat emptor. Social purpose non-profits? Does it sound like George Soros is behind this?

"Innovations" To Promote Low-Cost Journalism

The report suggests government make Freedom of Information Act data (and most government information) more readily available, indexable and available (to select new organizations) for a reduced-fee.

Summary

In a nutshell, the FTC proposal suggests we:

Abridge the freedom of speech and the press by restricting the utterance of facts reported in the news.

Limit the ability of search engines to search news.

License news so you pay when you repeat a fact.

Allow news organizations to collude.

Subsidize some news organizations, and promote non-profit news organizations for good social purposes.

Provide you with a voucher so you can buy non-profit news.

Tax TV, radio, TVs, radios, spectrum, advertising and cell phones.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. If any one of these proposals gets into any bill, it is a clear and blatant abridgment of the First Amendment.

Citizens: beware!

News Reaction:

Even the Huffington Post says to the FTC: Get off our lawn!

The LA Times ridicules it in a story: Obama's FTC plan to reinvent America's news media.

The Washington Examiner asks: Will journalists wake up in time to save journalism from Obama's FTC?

Simple and Funny - World Finance Explained

2010-06-01T05:00:00.000-04:00

An excellent and funny explanation of world governments bailout logic (what little there is of it!)

More Bailouts from Fed to Save ... Governments

2010-05-28T04:00:00.000-04:00

The Federal government (through the quasi-private Federal Reserve Bank) is the only level of our government who can coin money. So profligate spenders at state, county and local levels are going bankrupt , especially under the weight of bloated salaries and pensions for pubic workers.

Mish reports a story of the pending bankruptcy in Miami.

The city of Miami is in such financial dire straits that commissioner Marc Sarnoff is using the "B" word, bankruptcy.

"We are not the only city, municipality to be going through this. It looks like Los Angeles sometime next week or the week after will be going bankrupt. It looks like there will be 30 more cities following suit."

Increases in public worker salaries is one of the main reasons why the budget is so tight. The average salary for a Miami city employee is $76,000. The average salary for a Miami city resident is $29,000.

Employee pensions are choking the budget too. In 2000, pension payouts cost taxpayers $16 million. In 2009 that number spiked up to $70 million.

Not un-coincidentally, state governements all over are cutting pay, payrolls and crushing pension benefits:

Education Minnesota Drops Opposition to Curbing Benefits

The Atlantic reports: Public Pensions Headed for Disaster

New York City's pension contribution for 2011 is projected at $7 billion, more than 10% of the entire budget.

Even the New York Times cries: Padded Pensions Add to New York Fiscal Woes

more than 100 retired police officers and firefighters are collecting pensions greater than their pay when they were working. One of the youngest, Hugo Tassone, retired at 44 with a base pay of about $74,000 a year. His pension is now $101,333 a year.

This widespread and obscene theft of public money is unsustainable and is crashing down all over ... as it must.

EXCEPT .... to the rescue is the nanny of all nannies -- the bottomless pit of money from the Federal government: Sen Bob Casey (D-NJ) has proposed bill S.3157 to "save" public pensions .. those pensions that pay public workers 2-4 times the average private individual ... with the money from .. you got it .. the poorer private individuals.

I think few in the private sector voted for this "fundamental change" in America -- where private individuals are plundered for the benefit of overpaid public workers. This has to end NOW, or it will crash in an ugly fashion.

End Civil Forfeiture

2010-05-27T04:00:00.000-04:00

Quote of the Day: "Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets, all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head." - The Institute For Justice, "Policing For Profits"

Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of seizing and keeping property that police claim was used in a crime.

* The government does not have to prove their claim in court under the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
* Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" the property owner must prove innocence at his or her own expense
* Incredibly, the funds necessary to pay for that defense are often also confiscated

Police departments are growing more dependent on forfeitures to pay for their budgets. This means no one is safe . . .

* Instead of "protecting and serving" the people, police are pressured to investigate "crimes" which provide the best opportunity to seize property and cash,
* You can lose your car, your cash, or other property through a simple misunderstanding, or because you "look" suspicious
* And even where there are state laws protecting the innocent against abuses, the federal government rewards local police departments for evading state law!

Civil asset forfeiture is a moral and constitutional outrage. Yet the courts permit it. Only public pressure will bring this corrupt and barbaric practice to an end, so we're asking you to tell Congress to End Asset Forfeiture.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

The Institute for Justice report "Policing For Profit," offers a sobering look at asset forfeiture in the United States today. Local law enforcement have used asset forfeiture proceeds to . . . http://tinyurl.com/22p2oop

* purchase football tickets for the district attorney's office

* purchase TV ads for the district attorney's re-election campaign;

* fund a "training seminar" in Hawaii for the staff of the district attorney's office

In one instance, $250,000 was donated to the sheriff's alma mater for a scholarship!

Amazingly, most of this money was taken from people who were never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. It was stolen money.

"Policing For Profits" also reveals that . . .

* A survey of 770 law enforcement executives found that nearly 40% viewed civil forfeiture as a necessary budget supplement
* A sample of 52 police departments in Texas found that forfeiture proceeds accounted for 14% of their budgets
* There is very little accountability or oversight on how the money is spent

There are a few states with reasonable safeguards designed to protect the innocent against asset forfeiture abuse, but the federal government circumvents these state laws through a program called "equitable sharing." Local police can seize property and hand it over to the federal government in order to bypass state controls.

* The local police agency can get as much as 80% of the proceeds back from the Federal government
* The true owner must fight in federal court for the return of his or her property
* Instead of the government proving guilt, the owner must prove innocence
* The costs of challenging forfeiture is often so great that many forfeitures go unchallenged

In addition, the federal government itself has cleared a $1 billion profit from civil forfeiture. And yet, 80% of the property owners are never even charged with a crime. They are victims of government theft!

I have no problem with laws that require individuals convicted of heinous crimes to forfeit criminal profits and the property they used in the crime. But taking property without even pressing criminal charges is naked theft AND YOU KNOW IT.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments say that no person can lose his of her property without due process of law. Honor your oath of office. Repeal the federal forfeiture laws and end equitable sharing.

END LETTER

You can send your letter through DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

If you are as outraged at civil asset forfeiture as we are, we encourage you to forward this message to your friends and share this on Facebook.

Thanks for taking action!

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".

Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".

Your subscription comes to this email address: libertyyes@cooperusa.net.

If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.

If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click this link.

To update your newsletter preferences visit this link.

Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter

Taxes Eat 42% of Canadians' Income - Can Happen in the USA

2010-05-22T05:00:00.000-04:00

Here you go, from the Fraser Institute in Canada.

The Canadian Consumer Tax Index tracks the total tax bill of the average Canadian family from 1961 to 2009. The total tax bill of the average Canadian family, including all types of taxes, has increased by 1,624 percent since 1961.

Taxes have grown much more rapidly than any other single expenditure for the average Canadian family. In contrast to the jump in taxes, spending on shelter increased by 1,198 percent, food by 559 percent, and clothing by 526 percent from 1961 to 2009.

In 1961, the average family had an income of $5,000 and paid a total tax bill of $1,675 (33.5 percent). In 2009, the average Canadian family earned an income of $69,175 and paid total taxes equaling $28,878 (41.7 percent).

The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes than it does on the basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing. In 1961, the average family used 56.5 percent of its income on basic necessities, while only 33.5 percent of the family’s income went to taxes. In 2009, the proportion of income consumed by taxes had increased (to 41.7 percent), while the fraction of income spent on food, shelter, and clothing had dropped dramatically (to 37.1 percent).

Why Canada? Everyone that I meet in the USA says: "Why can't we have the economy (motored by oil), the health care (run by governments) and the economic stability (Run by excessive taxation) like they have in your home country of Canada?"

Canada is another one of the "canaries in the coal mine" about the creeping socialism all over the world. Greece, Spain, Italy ... somewhere down the line is Canada and the USA.

The report continues on ...

Including deferred taxes (deficits) means the tax bill of the average Canadian family has increased by 1,793 percent since 1961.

Yikes! I just don't get it! Governments all over have been spending FAR MORE than they can afford, racking up, especially, future pension liabilities for everyone .... then when the economy collapses, we do a bail-out.

Imagine what is going through the mind now of an average frugal German .. who is asked to bail out Greece. Greeks are living far beyond the means ... but will they cuts liabilities? not when Germans will send them cash.

I chatted with a friend last evening who told me that he had a huge sum in municipal bonds. I cautioned him, noting that Central Falls RI went bankrupt this week, and many states SHOULD follow. His response: "Oh, the Federal government will just bail them out of the bonds get in trouble." He said this after a 20 minute rant on the size and invasiveness of government.

We all may be capitalists, but but we like the nanny state. Until we throw out the bums who would spend and tax us to oblivion, and change this attitude ... we are screwed. But, on the horizon, I expect we will see more Chris Christie's -- honest, straight-talking politicians who aren't in government to line their own pockets.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a Breath of Fresh Air

2010-05-15T01:55:00.000-04:00

I can't add anything more than the following video. Christie for President!!!

Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone'

Obama Makes Move That Will Lead to Internet Censorship

2010-05-10T11:42:00.000-04:00

Under the cover of "net Neutrality", the Obama administration has moved closer to regulating free speech on the internet.

Vis:

In April, the Supreme Court threw out the FCC rule that dictated whether or not internet providers could throttle users of programs like BitTorrent.

Not happy with the SCOTUS affront to POTUS, last week, the FCC declared that the Internet is a public utility. if this stands, the government can control content -- your free speech, your RIGHT to disagree with the policies of this (or any) government. It makes, as Pamela Geller writes, Obama the Julius Caesar of the Internet.

Should you worry? Hell yes!

On Saturday in Virginia, Obama gave a speech where he said:

And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.

What the hey ?! Free flow of "information" is putting pressure on our democracy?

This is a very disturbing set of events.

I'm Getting Ill Watching the Wave of Socialism Washing Over America

2010-05-06T16:44:00.000-04:00

I just spent the last few weeks in France, watching the local Progressive politicians argue over who should pay for what failure.

I was stunned by a report in the International Tribune that described Germany's dilemma: Thrifty German citizens are being asked to bailed out profligate spending Greeks ... or bailout the German banks that invested in Greek bonds.

What about a third option? LET THEM FAIL AND LET THE BANKS AND THE GREEKS PAY FOR THE DECISIONS THEY MADE?

This bailout mentality has gripped the (once) civilized world. I'm depressed about the future and I am personally look for ways to protect myself from the insanity going on.

Organized Smear Against Main-Stream America

2010-04-21T03:19:00.000-04:00

If you are against the position of the Obama, you must be a racist.

If you want smaller government, you are spreading hate.

If you want lower taxes, you must be in favor of Timothy McVeigh.

If you think Obama has socialists as advisors or Communists, you must be anti-Semitic.

If you believe that this country was founded by people who had deeply religious believes that positively influenced the shape of the country, you must be a wing nut.

If you watch Glenn Beck, you are promoting sedition.

If you think the government spending is reckless, you are ungrateful and should be more thankful.

If you want the defeat of the most radical federal regime in 80 years, then you must be a radical!

And CAUTION! You may be silenced for your hate, your racism, your anti-black, anti-Semitic and radical love for America and respect for the Constitution.

Who is in on the campaign against you?

CNN: Andersen Cooper invented the gay-sexual-label "tea-bagger" to describe the tea party movement.

Time Magazine: has accused Glenn Beck of spreading sedition for not liking Obama.

NBC: Kelly O'Donnell asked a black man at a tea party if he felt comfortable.

Barack Obama: Last weekend scorned the tea party protesters, saying they should be "thankful".

SEIU: who set up anti-teaparty websites. What does a union have to do with taxpayer concerns? And isn't SEUI head Andy Stern on the Presidential costs panel ... while he backs anti-citizens rhetoric?

These and many are following the Alinsky Rules for Radicals .

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

The good news is, that in the long run, evil always loses to goodness. And that may start as soon as this November.

Public Unions Crushing States and Cities

2010-04-20T02:00:00.000-04:00

If you haven't yet browsed Mish's site, take a look at today's rant. His site is full of articles that document the coming battle between public sector unions and taxpayers.

The big challenge for us is that unions have their man, socialist Barack Obama, in power. With "advisers" like Andy Stern, head of SEIU, and avowed Communists and socialists running all over the in the White House (Anita Dunn, Van Jones, and now Jim Wallis) ....

It will be a battle royale! Unions really don't care about taxpayers. They only care about 3 things: power, more power and the union itself. Even its members are expendable.

The cry "workers of the world, unite" has gone out and this White House is leading the disembowelment of America.