THE TEA PARTY – CRITICS JUST DON’T GET IT

The third defining moment.

Critics of the Tea Party movement have spoken of guns, church, abortion and even insurrection. A prominent article published earlier this year in the New York Times alarmed its ill-informed readers by characterizing Tea Party people as militia types walking around with rifles and preparing for insurrection. Radical activist and convicted criminal Lyndon LaRouche was said to be typical of the leadership within the group. The fact that LaRouche has run for political office at least nine times, always and only on Labor or Democratic Party tickets did not deter the authors from connecting him with the Tea Party movement; nor did the fact that LaRouche chose the far left Ramsey Clark to be his defense attorney.

The most amazing, even amusing thing about the article is the authors seemed entirely genuine. They had not a clue how far off the mark they were. Members of the Press have sequestered themselves in a liberal bubble for so long that the walls of their self-imposed enclosure have become totally opaque. Even the brilliant ones are blind to, and ignorant of the world outside.

The Tea Party movement is perceived to be an eruption of old issues like abortion, guns, church and marriage by extremists who are anti-immigrant, anti-minority and anti-Obama only because he is Black and a Democrat. Whatever caused this unsophisticated lot to suddenly become so restless remains a total mystery. They just don’t get it. The only thing of which they are sure, is that any group that thinks a soccer mom can run the country better than a Harvard Law School graduate is a group to be feared and condemned, not one sought to be understood.

It is true, the old issues of abortion, guns and “In God we trust” are there. However, they are but a sidebar to the major concern of the people fast becoming known as the Tea Party Express. This is not about winning debates. It is about preserving the right of having debates. The Tea Party stands firmly athwart the path the nation is travelling toward totalitarian rule.

Obama is not the cause. He is the culmination. We sit at the end of a trend that began with Woodrow Wilson. It was extended by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson and is in the final stage of culmination by a (thus far) triumphant Barrack Hussein Obama.

Two significant events have shaped the land the world calls America, the parting from England and the Civil War. The third event stands before us. The November election is critical but we can survive whatever the result. If Obama wins re-election by a narrow margin in 2012 we will still have a slim chance of preserving our shining light. But if he wins it easily, it will mean the country has chosen another path.

Burke is the central figure.

Anyone who fails to vote this year or in 2012 is assuming an awesome responsibility. As the noted 18th century British statesman said “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing”.

SUBTLE BIAS IN THE PRESS

This example is from Bloomberg Financial and linked to by Yahoo Finance. Click the blue link if you want to read the entire article.

Representative Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat and co-sponsor of legislation letting companies seek duties on Chinese imports, said China is violating trade laws and the bill would give the U.S. tools to combat undervalued currencies.

“It’s now time for our country to have the guts to stand up and take a strong stand against China’s currency manipulation,” Ryan said today in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee. Representative Dave Camp, top Republican on the panel, said he opposes the legislation.

This will be taken by most readers as straight unbiased news. But what does it really convey? It says China is breaking the law and manipulating the currency markets. A Democrat is trying to help farmers and corporations disadvantaged by this illegal activity. A Republican opposes helping farmers and business men for no given reason.

Bias is definitely evident, but it is subtle enough to go unseen by most readers. Such subtle bias is not unusual, it is the norm. It is as common as dirt. In fact it is dirt.

The facts: The Republican cited, Dave Camp, used the entire time allotted to him by the Carl Levin’s Ways and Means Committee urging the committee to take strong measures to combat China’s trade practices. Read his statement here.

The bill was broadly opposed by Republicans because it was loaded with earmarks. Earmarks are bribes  politicians give to their constituencies in return for their votes. That is a valid reason for opposing the bill. A better one is given in Random Thots article equating tariffs on China to the Smoot-Hawley bill passed in 1930 that precipitated the Great Stock Market Crash and launched the depression.


WHY RANGEL WON THE NOMINATION

In the midst of a corruption scandal, Sen. Charles Rangel easily wins re-nomination by Democratic voters. There are two reasons. I am not running for public office so I can be frank and truthful.

The first reason is that, among Democrats, ideology trumps integrity. Freedom from corruption is not only not required, it doesn’t even seem to be an asset. Ex Mayor of Boston, James M. Curley campaigned for re-election from a prison cell where he was serving time for stealing from the very people from whom he was seeking re-election. He won handily.

The second reason is that Rangel represents a heavily Black district and in that community race trumps everything.

Charming Charlie knew he had nothing to lose by thumbing his nose at the investigation. He is a Democrat.

BOSTON HONORS CROOKED CURLEY WITH A STATUE

BOOK BURNING

KRUGMAN CALLS FOR REPEAT OF THE SMOOT-HAWLEY ACT, THE LAW GENERALLY REGARDED AS THE CAUSE OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION

Paul Krugman has sunk to the level of complete idiocy with this latest recommendation. All through most of the 1920’s a debate was raging in Congress over the passage of a bill to put large tariffs in place, most notably on imported steel. The argument pro was to protect American industry by making imported products non-competitive. The argument con was that other nations would respond with similar tariffs on American goods and trade would cease. The law was passed, other nations retaliated by raising their tariffs on American goods, exports collapsed, the stock market crashed, the Roaring Twenties ceased, the Great Depression began.

Edited from a Wall Street publication:

So after President Herbert Hoover took office in March 1929, Congress immediately set to work on a new tariff regime. This is an important point, because you have to picture that this legislation was winding its way through committee long before eventual passage in June 1930. It is a fair statement to say that the prospects for Smoot-Hawley had something to do with the October 1929 market crash itself.

On Monday, October 28, the New York Times ran a front-page story on possible passage of Smoot-Hawley, the next day, on Tuesday the 29th, the day of the Crash, other national papers had picked up on the issue.

Now Krugman wants to do the same thing again. Of course it is not the steel industry this time. Steel was a major import in 1930, now it’s goods from China. It is forgivable for the man in the street to think this is a good idea. We’re all a bit miffed that everything seems to come from China and the world of economics is not broadly understood.

What would China do? What would American industry do? What would other nations do? We have spoken previously of the economic tenet called Rational Expectations. All players act, I should say react, in their own best interest. One rational expectation would be for China to cease funding our debt. This could cause a 200 to 300 percent increase in the currently very low rate of interest we are paying on our skyrocketing national debt.

Another expectation is China would raise its prices to recoup the tariff. U.S. manufacturers cannot produce goods as cheaply as the Chinese. If they could, they would be doing it already. The cost of everything we get from China would increase, and likely by more than the rate of the tariff itself. When Smoot-Hawley was enacted, even nations not directly affected perceived an opportunity and instituted high tariffs as well.

Einstein is usually the one credited with defining an idiot as someone who repeats the same mistake while expecting a different result. Krugman is an ideologue posing as an economist. Yes, I know he was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. That only serves to confirm my opinion of him.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS

The Declaration of Independence declares the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights, rights that can be denied to no man. Franklin Roosevelt added food, clothing, housing and adequate health care in what he termed “The Second Bill of Rights”.

The Declaration of Independence. It is just one page, not 2,000

The difference should be apparent. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not require the taking of a right from one person to fulfill the right of another. However, implementation of the FDR’s Second Bill of Rights does just that. It demands the taking of personal property from those who have it in order to pay the cost of goods and services for those who do not provide for themselves, no matter the reason. A right cannot be denied. The inalienable right to life cannot be denied. The inalienable right to require someone else to pay your medical bills does not exist.

This is not to say that society has no obligation to support the needy. Dennis Miller, in his inimitable style, said it well when he said “We just want to see some bona fides, that’s all.”

RANDOM STUFF Sept 13, 2010

The New York Times reports today in the print edition, “A majority of those who voted for Obama still approve of the job he is doing”. Another way of putting it would be, that among those who voted for Obama, nearly half were willing to admit to a pollster that they were wrong, and that they disapprove of the job Obama is doing. I can use a truthful statement to spin a poll just as well as can the big boys at the paper still considered by some to be the one of record.

Now about those parties, the way the Obama’s are partying one would think they had won the lottery, or were spending someone else’s money. It makes one wonder if Barack feels he only has two more years and is milking it for all he can get while he can get it. I am getting a little irked. He lives in our house and we let him stay there because he has pledged to be of service to us. Then he throws one private party after another and we are not invited, at least most of us are not. We let him live rent free, he changes the furniture and sends us the bill. It’s time we threw the bum out.

Crime seems to be on the increase. Sometimes it is downright disgusting. Take Cabbagegate for instance. Some creep named Steve Miller down in De Kalb County Georgia has been growing too many vegetables, and his crop wasn’t limited to cabbage either. He was even giving spinach and some green peppers to his neighbors, but they caught him, slapped a 5,000 dollar fine on the scoundrel. Read about it here.

BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC

This hymn was born dur­ing the Amer­i­can ci­vil war, when Julia Ward Howe vis­it­ed a Un­ion Ar­my camp on the Po­to­mac Riv­er near Wash­ing­ton, D. C. She heard the sol­diers sing­ing the song “John Brown’s Body,” and was tak­en with the strong march­ing beat. The next day she wrote the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

VENEZUELA ACCELERATES DOWN

Inflation is not an increase in prices.

Inflation is a decrease in the value of a currency.

Hugo Chavez, the socialist leader of Venezuela is giving the world yet another example of how central planning works. Under his leadership the Venezuelan Bolivar is experiencing rapid depreciation. As of April 2010, the Bolivar was declining in value at a 32% annual rate.

CHAVEZ AND A FAN

The Chavez government has nationalized privately owned oil companies (sixty of them), metal companies, newspaper companies, universities, banks, food supermarkets, the communications industry and general merchandise retailers. The justification, expressly stated in many cases, was to control inflation. Most recently the Venezuelan stores operated by a large retailer based in France were closed by the Chavez government, without notice, only because they raised their prices in tune with inflation.

The government is running most industries, and inflation is “still” rampant so Chavez reasons the problem must be somewhere else. Now he thinks he has found the cause. Venezuela imports most of its food. “Venezuelan businessmen buy abroad, come here and ask for more than it really costs” he said in fractured English. Translation – If businessmen are unwilling to operate at a loss the government will confiscate their businesses and do it for them.

The Financial Times reports:

Chávez seems to think he can decree low inflation. But it’s absurd,” said one local businessman who is broadly sympathetic to the government.

Last week, he said private companies exploited their workers for economic gain, and then sold their goods for inflated prices. He particularly singled out the country’s largest food and beverage producer, Polar, and recommended that the bourgeoisie read more Karl Marx.

But then Mr Chávez was undone by his own socialist project’s contradictions when 30,000 tons of rotting food were discovered at a warehouse run by state oil company PDVSA. Mr Chávez conceded that corruption and inefficiency was involved, but remained undaunted: “This will not divert us from our route toward our main goal . . . Socialism!”

Yet my liberal friends ask what is wrong with Socialism.

ROAD TO RECOVERY

Contained in every recession are the seeds for its own recovery. It is a little known fact, but true, that prior to the 1930’s the government did not intervene in recessions. The economy was left to heal itself which it did very nicely. Such an approach, call it a non-approach if you will, is not feasible in today’s electoral Democracy. Given that constraint, what should government do?

DO
Stimulation needs to be focused on the private sector. It is the private sector that’s in recession, not the government. Jobs added to the private sector are a boon to the wealth of the nation. The cost is relatively small, with emphasis on the “relatively” of course. A few one shot injections and a modicum of patience is all it usually takes.

One such injection was used by both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan was to open a 2 year window during which business could get quicker tax write-offs on new plant and equipment. Inasmuch as it was a temporary benefit the response of business was quick. The immediate cost to the government was zero. The long term outlay by the government was zero. The only thing that changed was the timing of the receipt of revenue. That is the sort of thing government should do.

Most important of all is for the government to get out of the way and let the recovery begin.

DON’T
Don’t expand the government sector. The government sector is never in recession and does not need “stimulation”. Do not encourage the destruction of usable personal property. When many people are out of work it is not the time to reduce the supply of goods and increase the cost of living. Roosevelt ordered the slaughtering of thousands of young pigs, Obama paid to have serviceable used cars destroyed. Roosevelt’s avowed purpose was to raise the price of pork. Obama’s purpose was not to raise prices but used car prices have risen as a normal consequence.

The most dangerous thing a government can do in the midst of a recession is to raise taxes. Raising taxes, even a little bit, during a recession risks depression. Raising taxes substantially increases the risk proportionately.

THE ROCK AND THE HARD PLACE
Two other weapons government can normally use to fight a recession are lowering interest rates and lowering taxes. But taxes are already low and interest rates are near zero. On both the fiscal and monetary fronts, we are out of ammunition. Only an external event, a change of administration or the passage of time will lead us out.