The 1776 Project: American Action

The No-Insurance Club

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:49:00 +0000

Via Carpe Diem
What's the No Insurance Club?

For an annual fee of just $480 for singles ($580 for couples and $680 for families) The No Insurance Club offers affordable pre-paid health care plans that cover basic medical services from a participating board-certified physician, with no deductibles, no additional premiums, and no co-payments. Services vary slightly depending on your location, but a $480 individual plan with this Atlanta physician covers 12-16 annual office visits, flu shot, pregnancy testing, EKG, an annual checkup, one sports physical, vision test, among other services, see full list here.

Social Security is next to become a true Welfare Program

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:38:00 +0000

Need senior's support for your atrocious healthcare overhaul? Want more people dependent on the government? Want to secure the democrat party's power for years to come by buying votes through a massive expansion of government hand-outs? How about giving seniors $250 checks for "increased cost of living expenses" (nevermind that the recession has done away with these alleged increases but you're a democrat. facts don't matter.) Oh, and the the House Republicans should be ashamed for pandering and going along with this.

From The Heritage foundation:
Since Social Security recipients will get no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) next year, President Obama wants to give each of them $250, a move supported in principle by the Republican House and Senate leadership. However, this move is not only unjustified; it makes a fundamental change to Social Security's structure and starts the process of converting the program from an earned benefit funded by a worker's own contributions to a welfare program.

The Free Market is Non-Sense

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:22:00 +0000

Here's Obama's Manufacturing Czar. But...we can't judge a man by the company he keeps...or the people he hires to carry out policies. (Must watch in full screen mode).

The White House said...

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:52:00 +0000

...that if we passed the $787 billion stimulus that by september this year unemployment would be below 7.6% and that if we didn't pass the stimulus unemployment would reach 9.5%. Well, guess what...the White House, the government, the Experts, the bureaucrats were wrong.

There are your numbers Prez Bo. But don't worry, Mr President because you have professional spin doctors and a populace of myrmidons who will hang on your every word (cause if they don't, they're racists) See, politicians like the President know that if the economy improves they can take credit for it by citing the stimulus and if it doesn't improve, well, then they can say that the stimulus wasn't big enough and that another is needed...wait, they've already started discussing it. Yes, my friends (drum-roll, please) a Second Stimulus! So, you see they can't lose. They can spin it however they like and all the looters out there - statists, welfare recipients and the Obama-is-so-awesome-cause-he's-so,- well- awesome crowd - will lap the spin right up.

But the facts are that they were wrong about the first stimulus and this next one will be no different! And healthcare and the costs associated with it? Don't worry everyone, those numbers are solid.

Yeah, right.

H/T United Liberty

Even a Blind Squirrel Finds a Nut Every Now and Again...

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:23:00 +0000

Al Franken, a man who I never thought I would agree with on anything - ANYTHING! - managed to surprise me. Kudo's Al. Now, if you wouldn't mind, read the 1st and 2nd amendments as well as Article 1 Section 8, then we might could sit down and have a discussion.

Read his first moment of brilliance here.

School Kids Taught to Praise Obama

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:14:00 +0000

I know, we are just a bunch of over-zealous paranoid, fascist, racist right-wingers so just ignore these videos...it's cool.

lyrics:

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

Taking Over Everything

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:04:00 +0000

I know we aren't supposed to say or suggest that the President is "taking over" the economy, i.e. regulating or nationalizing sectors of our economy, but this piece from David Boaz of the Cato Institute seems to lend credence to our charge. Please, read on...

“My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy,” President Obama sighed to George Stephanopoulos during his Sunday media blitz.

Not every sector. Just

...Read the rest here.

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:05:00 +0000

One of our fans on Facebook posted this video on our wall and I wanted to repost it here to share with the rest of you. Listen to what Reagan is saying here and how so little has changed since the early 60's with regard to the Left's desire to subject us all to socialized medicine and how the same rules and calls to action apply today to try to stop this usurpation of our liberty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

OMG! Free Health Care! LOL! I LOVE OBAMA!

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:51:00 +0000

OMG! Free Health Care sounds so AWESOME! LOL!!!111one! Obama is my home boy! HE'S SO DREAMY! OMG! ROFLMAO! We need health care cUZ people need help and rich people can pay for it. LOL! HOPE FO' SHO'! YES WE CAN! OMG! I LUV IT!

The U.S. Has a More Progresssive Tax Code than France or Sweden...

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:43:00 +0000

And our President wants to make it even more progressive. The dishonesty used by politicians regarding how the wealthy "don't pay their fair share" is disgusting. I would venture to bet that most of us reading this piece are not in the top 1% of income earners. In fact we are probably - most of us anyway - probably in those tax brackets that the Left targets with their class war mongering. Yet because we value freedom over "fairness", liberty over slavery and because we believe that government should "not take from the mouth of labor the bread which it has earned" we find these kinds of numbers disturbing even though it is not us who it directly affects.

I once heard a liberal talk show host in Boca Raton, Fl mention that she just didn't understand why people wouldn't vote for their self-interests and just vote to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for programs for those who aren't wealthy. To her the ballot box is a means of "leveling the playing field" and of bringing about social justice through heavily progressive taxation. I suppose the answer to her asinine question goes something like this:

Ma'am, while it may not be in my direct self-interest to oppose the heavy progressive taxation you espouse it is never-the-less in my indirect self-interest to oppose such a view. Why? I know this fact may escape you but these people, with their millions of dollars, provide jobs not only through what they do - athletes, wall street bankers, movie stars, entertainers, business owners etc - but they also provide jobs simply by who they are. The athlete, like Alex Rodriguez, provides jobs to hundreds if not thousands of people at Yankee stadium. Think of the popcorn vendor or the beer guy who sells his food-stuffs to loyal Yankee fans who came to see A-Rod hit another homerun and these fans want a beer or popcorn or a hot dog while watching him do it. Think of the opportunistic t-shirt vendor outside the stadium with A-Rod emblazened t-shirts for sale and the person who made those t-shirts, the person who made the ink for those t-shits, the person who shipped those t-shirts and the list goes on. Do you think that if Alex Rodriguez didn't get paid what he did, that he would even be a Yankee? Would those same jobs be there? Would as many people come out to the park? Would the Yankees win as many games and so attract as many people as they do now? Would that t-shirt guy enjoy more or less sales? Would the t-shirts guy's vendors make the same amount in sales? Who knows. What I do know is that things are the way they are now because, well, A-Rod is good and he gets a handsome compensation for it. I don't want to take that money from him even if doing so benefits me directly. I'm sure that A-Rod spends a great deal of that money as well. Somebody built his house and somebody probably takes care of it. Think of everything that goes into those 2 things alone! The wood, the brick, the concrete, the carpet, the walls, the lights - all of those items are the end result of a long stream of thousands of people working independently to create one simple object that Leftist like you take for granted. Would A-Rod buy all of this stuff if he was taxed more than he is now? Probably not or at least he'd buy less of it and so less people would have less to produce.
Moreover, Ms. Leftist-Talk-Show-Host-in-Boca, what makes you think I have the right to force someone else to pay extremely high taxes just to benefit me? Do I have the right to walk into your house and take you plasma tv or your ipod or whatever? No! So why I should then think that its okay to use the ballot box to essentially do the same thing, i.e. take from you money that you would otherwise use to spend on material goods or some charity or however you please?

This kind of thinking escapes the Left and that is why we have the kind of taxation we do. To them social justice and equality means "we all have the same stuff" as if though people's intrinsic equality and worth comes from how much they have in material goods compared to the rest of society. For those of us who wish to live moral and just lives the 10 commandments give us some good guidelines*. The 10th one says the following: You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. The Left's version reads more like this: You shall covet your neighbor's house; you shall covet your neighbor's wife, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, and anything that is your neighbor's because he probably has more than you and that just ain't fair, and if you have to use the power of government to take it from him. That's the Left's modus operandi in a nutshell and it is the foundation of their ethics and form that foundation flows the kind of "progressive" taxation we see today.

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

by Scott A. Hodge

Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

[Click chart to enlarge.]

*the 10 commandments are a primarily religious document and while many of us may not be religious there are elements of the 10 commandments by which we do and should live our lives. Like the McManus brothers in Boondock Saints say: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace...These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior.

Health Care: Do we Need a Lexus?

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:16:00 +0000

This piece from the Boston Globe. It discusses how the cost of health insurance would drop if the government didn't force us to purchase plans that include coverage for many things we don't need or want. The author, Jeff Jacoby, argues by way of analogy comparing current laws that force us to buy all-inclusive health care plans to being forced to purchase a Lexus when all we may need is a Toyota.

IMAGINE the sort of car you’d drive if government regulations made it illegal to sell any automobile that didn’t feature 380-horsepower direct-injection V6 engines, computer-controlled electric power steering, eight-speed automatic transmission, four-wheel-drive, automatic climate control, “smart key’’ technology, touch-screen navigation, backup cameras, LED headlights, acoustic glass, surround-sound stereo, and leather seat stitching.

If those were the minimum requirements every car had to meet before it could be sold, would you commute to and from work every day in a Lexus LS 460 or some other luxury vehicle? Well, you might, if the steep price wasn’t an obstacle. But it’s more likely you wouldn’t be driving at all. If the government barred you from buying anything but a high-end car, you’d probably have no choice but to rely on the bus or subway, or to find a job closer to home.

What is true of transportation is true of everything else: Increase the number of amenities that a product or service must include, and more consumers will be unable to pay for that product or service.
Read more here.

1982 Walter Williams Discussing Poverty, Blacks and Government

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:27:00 +0000

This from Carpe Diem. An interesting discussion on how the government and not free markets keep the poor and many black people from advancing economically.

Watch the first part above of Walter Williams' PBS documentary Good Intentions based on his book, The State Against Blacks (1982). The documentary was very controversial at the time it was released and led to many animosities and even threats of murder.

In Good Intentions, Dr. Williams examines the failure of the war on poverty and the devastating effect of well meaning government policies on blacks asserting that the state harms people in the U.S. more than it helps them. He shows how government anti-poverty programs have often locked people into poverty making the points that:

- being forced to attend 3rd rate public schools leave students unprepared for working life
- minimum wages prevent young people from obtaining jobs at an early age
- licensing and labor laws have had the effect of restricting entrance of blacks into the skilled trades and unions
- the welfare system creates perverse incentives for the poor to make bad choices they otherwise would not

Arrogance

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:20:00 +0000

This article by John Stossel from Real Clear Politics.

It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August.

Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, "to reinvent the nation's health care system".

Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.

Video on Canadian Health Care...

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:22:00 +0000

While what Obama and the democrats in Congress are not currently proposing a "single payer system" the current proposal will lead inevitably to a single payer system. Anyhow, take a look at this video from PJ TV.

Take action, folks. We can Flatline ObamaCare. Call the congressmen listed here:

Here is the contact information for Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA-8). He is from Macon, so that is probably the best office to contact.

Macon Office:
682 Cherry Street, Suite 300
Macon, GA 31201
Phone: (478) 464-0255
Toll-free: (877) 464-0255
Fax: (478) 464-0277

Dublin Office:
503 Bellevue Avenue, Suite C
Dublin, GA 31021
Phone: (478) 296-2023
Fax: (478) 296-2802

Tifton Phone: (229) 556-7418

Washington Office:
504 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202/225-6531
Fax: 202/225-3013

John Barrow (D-GA-12) is the other Democrat from Georgia who is potentially vulnerable. He tends to be more liberal than Marshall, but not by much.

Savannah is probably the best office to call here.

Washington, DC
213 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p: (202) 225-2823
f: (202) 225-3377

Augusta
925 Laney Walker Blvd. Suite 300
Augusta, GA 30901
p: (706)722-4494
f: (706) 722-4496 764

Sandersville
City Hall, 141 West Haynes St.
P.O. Box 1017
Sandersville, GA 31082
p: (478) 553-1923
f: (478) 553-9215

Savannah
450 Mall Boulevard, Suite A
Savannah, GA 31406
p: (912) 354-7282
f: (912) 354-7782

Vidalia
Vidalia Community Center
107 Old Airport Rd., Suite A
Vidalia, GA 30474
p: (912) 537-9301
f: (912) 537-9266

FOR REPRESENTATIVES IN PENNSYLVANIA

Rep. Patrick Murphy

go here

Rep. Tim Holden

go here

Rep. Christopher Carney

go here

Rep. Jason Altmire

go here

You can also sign this petition:

Here

Flatline ObamaCare Now!

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:34:00 +0000

Alright folks,

We are working on posting updates on facebook, our action blog and our regular blog. It's up to all of us and those who we know to take action and call and fax these politicians. The 2 individuals listed below have been singled out because they are blue dog democrats who are on the fence on the bill. We can sway them to not toe the party line. The health care bill has stalled in committee. We have to strike now before they pull the wool over our eyes again and sneak this by us.

I cannot stress to you enough that taking action now and killing this thing now is of utmost importance. If this thing passes and the President signs it you can be sure that getting rid of this monstrosity will be very difficult. Stop it now before it's too late. Forward this info to your friends, post it on your blog, post it on my space or anywhere you can.. Take action! Start today!

Here is the text that we should use (feel free to add or subtract as you see fit so long as we are united in saying NO to HR3200).

Hi, my name is _____________. I'm calling about HR 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. I am concerned about that this bill will lead to a government takeover of health care and that the tax increases proposed by Democratic leadership could have a crippling effect on our economy. Georgians are watching and waiting to see if the Congressman will stand for taxpayers, present and future, and be a voice for fiscal sanity.

Thanks for your time.

Here is the info for the congressmen whom we can sway. Remember, it doesn't matter if they are not in your district or even in your state. Their decisions affect all of us.

Here is the contact information for Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA-8). He is from Macon, so that is probably the best office to contact.

Macon Office:
682 Cherry Street, Suite 300
Macon, GA 31201
Phone: (478) 464-0255
Toll-free: (877) 464-0255
Fax: (478) 464-0277

Dublin Office:
503 Bellevue Avenue, Suite C
Dublin, GA 31021
Phone: (478) 296-2023
Fax: (478) 296-2802

Tifton Phone: (229) 556-7418

Washington Office:
504 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202/225-6531
Fax: 202/225-3013

John Barrow (D-GA-12) is the other Democrat from Georgia who is potentially vulnerable. He tends to be more liberal than Marshall, but not by much.

Savannah is probably the best office to call here.

Washington, DC
213 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p: (202) 225-2823
f: (202) 225-3377

Augusta
925 Laney Walker Blvd. Suite 300
Augusta, GA 30901
p: (706)722-4494
f: (706) 722-4496 764

Sandersville
City Hall, 141 West Haynes St.
P.O. Box 1017
Sandersville, GA 31082
p: (478) 553-1923
f: (478) 553-9215

Savannah
450 Mall Boulevard, Suite A
Savannah, GA 31406
p: (912) 354-7282
f: (912) 354-7782

Vidalia
Vidalia Community Center
107 Old Airport Rd., Suite A
Vidalia, GA 30474
p: (912) 537-9301
f: (912) 537-9266

It's Not An Option

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:27:00 +0000

This from Investor's Business Daily Editorials.

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Ayn Rand Interview 1959

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:02:00 +0000

Want a 30% Reduction in Health Care Costs? Here's how...

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:58:00 +0000

This via Carpe Diem.

More and more companies are putting health care clinics in the workplace. That can mean big savings. Some studies show businesses can cut health care costs by up to 30%.

~National Public Radio

MP: More than 1,000 companies, like Rockwell Aviation (featured in the NPR story), offer on-site health care clinics, and they are expected to serve 10-15% of the working population within the next few years. So while President Obama and politicians in Washington dream up the latest grandiose government health care reform to address rising healthcare costs, the most effective, affordable and convenient healthcare solutions might be right on location at your workplace health care clinic.

Who's the Materialist?

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:53:00 +0000

This form Cafe Hayek

Don Boudreaux

Here's a letter that I sent recently to the Washington Post:

E.J. Dionne describes capitalism as "a system rooted in materialist values" ("To the Right of the Pope," July 9). "Materialist values" is a vague term, but if - as seems to be the case - Mr. Dionne thinks the chief justification for capitalism is that it generates lots of stuff for consumers, he's mistaken.

While capitalism emphatically does improve material living standards, all the great champions of economic freedom (aka capitalism) ultimately justify this system because only it affords true dignity to individuals - the dignity that is denied by interventionist systems which arbitrarily diminish each person's freedom to choose. For "Progressives" such as Mr. Dionne not to share the value of freedom is fine. But it's rather cheeky to accuse, with one breath, proponents of capitalism of being unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Lying Hypocrites

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:43:00 +0000

This is a repost from Cafe Hayek.

Lying Hypocrites

Don Boudreaux

Politicians have no shame. None. Here are the first two paragraphs of Betsy McCaughey's article in today's Wall Street Journal:

Last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. It's not true.

The president is barnstorming the nation, urging swift approval of legislation that is taking shape in Congress. This legislation -- the Affordable Health Choices Act that's being drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy's staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- will push Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls. It specifically exempts members of Congress (along with federal employees; the exemptions are in section 3116).

Lies. Special privileges.

Par for the course.

How to Cure Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:33:00 +0000

This was written in 2001. You'd think that in 8 years our elected "representatives" would consider options that don't involve them controlling us, but the allure of power is too great.

How to Cure Health Care by Milton Friedman via the Hoover Institute.

Since the end of World War II, the provision of medical care in the United States and other advanced countries has displayed three major features: first, rapid advances in the science of medicine; second, large increases in spending, both in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars per person and the fraction of national income spent on medical care; and third, rising dissatisfaction with the delivery of medical care, on the part of both consumers of medical care and physicians and other suppliers of medical care.

Global Financial Crisis, Mortgage Tsunami, Housing Bubble Can All Be Traced to Federal Government Intervention to Create Affordable Housing

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:20:00 +0000

Via Carpe Diem

Excerpts from "The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008," a 26-page report released yesterday by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created “affordable” but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage.

Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests – politicians, lenders and lobbyists – who profited from the “affordable” housing market and acted to kill reforms. In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate. However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy. While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.

The real tragedy of the government’s affordable housing policy is the impact on average Americans, particularly those of modest means. Millions of these borrowers, who were supposed to have been helped by federal affordable housing policy, have now been forced into delinquency and foreclosure, destroying their asset base, their credit, and in some cases their families. For example, Latino homeowners, who once appeared to be among the most frequent beneficiaries of affordable housing policies, are now the victims of the policies that their political representatives in Washington once championed.

The consequences of these policies have also brought the entire global financial system to the brink of collapse, destroying trillions in equity and untold numbers of lives. It is essential to reexamine the borrow-and-spend, high-leverage policies that became prevalent in the mortgage market as a result of well-intentioned-but-reckless decisions made by elected officials on behalf of the American people.

Washington must reexamine its politically expedient but irresponsible approach to encouraging higher levels of homeownership based on imprudently small down payments and too little emphasis on borrowers’ creditworthiness and ability to repay their loans. Without such a return to fiscal discipline and responsibility, we will continue making the same mistakes that led us to the current financial crisis.

HT: Tom Sullivan

Privacy Issues In Federal Systems

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:39:00 +0000

from the Cato Institute.

By Solveig Singleton "Privacy Issues in Federal Systems"

Federal information-gathering systems of many different types raise similar concerns about privacy; some of these systems include tax enforcement systems, Know Your Customer programs to crack down on money laundering, medical databases, and so on. My testimony today is applicable to a wide range of systems, and will explore the following issues:

The danger to human rights from federal information systems.
Security concerns such as identity theft, as distinct from privacy concerns.
The role of encryption, biometrics, and digital signatures in federal systems.
The most effective rules for ameliorating federal threats to privacy, emphasizing the importance of limited government, limited agency discretion, and the Fourth Amendment.

Where was the government with Studebaker?

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:14:00 +0000

P.J. O'Rourke "Where Was the government with Studebaker?" from Reason.tv

There's something romantic about trains, but try getting the tracks to come to your house. When it comes time to unload the groceries, the romance of the train ends immediately.

Politicians love trains. Why? Because they can tell where the tracks go. They know where everybody's going. For policiticians it's all about control and power. Politicians hate cars because cars make people free. Not only free in the sense that they can go anywhere they want, which bugs politicians, but they can move out of the political districts that the politicians represent.

Politics itself is nothing more than an attempt to achieve power and prestige without merit. That's the definition of politics...

How to Kill a Nation...

noreply@blogger.com (1776 Project) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:10:00 +0000

This from Conserv-a-rant.

Cap & Trade will turn out to be [if passed] the single most wantonly destructive piece of legislation to come from Capitol Hill since Roe vs. Wade. House Resolution 2454 proposes some of the most sweeping and radical pro-special interest infested regulation we've ever had to face in our lifetimes. Did we ask for these regulations?