Tag Archives: Economy

Cogs Won’t Work in Galt’s America, Obama

by

2

Updated.

Keep your eyes open America.  It can happen here. A power wielding and hungry White House is preaching to America fiscal responsibility as it did today at Rio Rancho High School in New Mexico.  The President blames you Americans for your extravagant ways while spending not only money we, Americans,  don’t have, but money the next generation of American won’t have.

Beside printing money to pay the bills, Obama has other irons in the fire, forging a workers’ paradise.  Meanwhile, countries living socialism’s dream, England, comes to mind, are mired in mediocrity and living off the glory of the past.   The talent of the country is worried and some think of “going Galt.’  According to Michelle Malkin, the talented have problems staying with England’s tax ladened Ship of State. As socialism takes it’s toll across the Pond, taxes bring fresh tears, and sneers, and have the talented crying foul.  Malkin quotes the manifesto of renowned composed Andrew Lloyd Webber, who fearing a talent exodus, writes of the punitive taxes.

Here’s the truth. The proposed top rate of income tax is not 50 per cent. It is 50 per cent plus 1.5 per cent national insurance paid by employees plus 13.3 per cent paid by employers. That’s not 50 per cent. Two years from now, Britain will have the highest tax rate on earned income of any developed country.

I write this article because I fear the inevitable exodus of the talent that can dig us out of the hole we find ourselves in. It is inevitable, given that other countries are bidding for entrepreneurs. The Government must modify its proposals.

Will entrepreneurs be there when we want and need them.  Don’t count on it.  With ground rules being written by government bureaucrats, the inventive and ingenious may look elsewhere to plant their talent

‘Going Galt’ is an alternative option to emigration to lands of lower taxation. Eric Etheridge writes: ‘Going Galt’: Everyone’s Doing It! With Tristero of Hullabaloo’s help, Etheridge explains ‘Going Galt’ in a nutshell:

John Galt is the copper-haired, white-boy protagonist in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Galt leads a revolutionary movement in which all the top leaders of the banks and corporations forsake their corporate jets and perks to work in diners or as subway repair guys. No they weren’t fired by Galt. Rather, Galt urged them to go on strike and withdraw their expertise from an increasingly socialist world. Deprived of the genius of their genius, the world economy collapses.

Who exactly is thinking about Going Galt? Lisa Schifferen at The Corner has the rundown:

The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians). They are not robber barons, or trust-fund babies, or plutocrats, or even celebrities. They are mostly the meritocrats who worked hard in high school and got into the better colleges and grad schools, where they studied while others partied. They pushed through grueling hours and unpleasant “up or out” policies in their twenties and thirties at top law firms, banks, hospitals, and businesses to earn salaries in the solid six figures (or low seven) today — in their peak earning years. Their work ethic is prodigious, and . . . in their spare time they sit on the boards of most of the complex charities and arts institutions that provide aid and pay for culture in America. No group of people contribute more to their community. And now the president, who followed a path sort of like that, and who claims that his wife’s former six-figure income was a result of precisely such qualifications and efforts, is demonizing them. More problematically, he is penalizing their success and giving them very clear incentives to ratchet back on productivity.

My take: “We the People” aren’t cogs in a machine, even a great machine, that our dear leader can fit to his purposes.  We began this experiment of nationhood in revolution due to unresponsive tyranny: “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Decaration of Independence.

We are America and the America of our Founders is precious to the hearts of the American People, our people.  We must seek better options than going Galt or conforming to Obama’s social  socialist dream, never forsaking freedom and free enterprise.

Our problems were caused not by free enterprise but by poor governance.  We can not expect government to fix us.  We must fix ourselves with the help of a good God.  Our Founders formed a nation that depends on a morally healthy people.  We are a people awaiting our transformation; seeds breaking open, falling into the ground and bringing forth healthy, holy new life.  This is the American dream.  It is the dream of the broken but more importantly, the gifted, the resourceful, the ingenious and the industrious, empowered by God to be a blessing to our Nation and the world. The is an old saying that says, ‘Without God we can’t do it; but without us, God won’t do!” Together as one People, let’s do it!

Gangster Government-The Strong Man Using Strong Arm

by

Gangster government on the prowl?

Michelle Malkin writes of the abusive treatment the hedge fund industry is receiving at the strong arm tactics of  Barack Obama. “He keeps taking their money. They keep getting publicly tongue-lashed.”

This week, AQR Capital Management LLC hedge fund manager Cliff Asness — at considerable risk to himself and his business — issued a striking manifesto responding to the president’s self-serving demagoguery and flagrant disregard for the rule of law. You can find Cliff’s essay and his other invaluable work at Stumbling on Truth.

Asness writes in this manifesto:

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can.  They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing.  Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not.  The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views.  That’s how the system works.  If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice”, you would not be happy.

….. This is America.  We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years.  When it fails it fixes itself.  Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.

I am ready for my “personalized” tax rate now.

Michelle further writes:

Asness minced no words: “The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him…Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.”

Business as usual in the Era of Hope and Change. Perhaps demonized entrepreneurs will finally learn that when the dog you feed bites your hand, you don’t roll up your sleeve and give him your arm. You get a new dog.

Is the power grab over?  I hardly think so, nor does Examiner Editorial (Washington Examiner.) writing of another in your pocket action of the President giving UAW something they never earned nor could earn for themselves, effectively ownership of Chrysler:

True, the union doesn’t get an explicit controlling majority of the board of directors, but who needs that when you’ve got the White House guaranteeing your work and the U.S. Treasury Department making sure you never have to worry about the bottom line. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger’s place in Big Labor’s Hall of Fame is now secure. He found a sugar daddy with an endless supply of cash. So UAW members and retirees can keep right on drawing those pay and benefits so excessively generous they made it impossible for the old Chrysler to compete with Toyota and Honda.

Hans Bader of OpenMarket.org writes:

Obama effectively gave ownership of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers Union (which spent millions electing Obama), rather than taxpayers (who have spent billions to bail out Chrysler) or the institutions that lent money to Chrysler based on the legal right and expectation that they would receive its assets before the UAW union would. Veteran political commentator Michael Barone also calls it “gangster government.” The UAW will also retain “lucrative” pension and health benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer.

White House Not Repeating Early Denial

by

Digging in and hunkering down seems to be the strategy. Instapundit reports  Business Insider: The White House is Now Refusing to Respond to Chrysler Threat Stories

“By refusing to comment on our subsequent story about additional threats, the White House appears to be backing away from its earlier denial. If the threats weren’t made, why not just repeat the earlier denial? That would be easy enough.”

More from Business Insider:

New allegations here .

Left Wing losing it’s  mind here

“Directly Threatened” here

Just the Facts on “Green” Tax

by

Michelle Malkin leads with the facts as always, and an invitation to tea party activists, “Here’s your opportunity to reach across the aisle.”  Seems Henry Waxman shortcircuited debate to “ram eco-taxes through Congress.” The NRCC sent out a fact sheet pointing out the woes of the radical tax plan.  Dems in energy states fear the down-down-down side of this plan.

Michelle’s summary of the facts (H/T):

After stalling actions in Congress in the face of political pressure on the national energy tax, tempers boiled over among party leaders:

“Tensions over the direction of a sweeping climate change bill boiled over in a House Democratic leadership meeting Thursday, as Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.) lashed out at Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) for appearing to publicly downgrade the measure’s chances this year. ‘This is not helpful,’ Waxman told Van Hollen, citing reports that presented the party’s campaign chief as opposing aggressive action on the bill, sources familiar with the meeting said.” (Dennis and Newmyer, “Democrats Clash on Climate Change,” Roll Call, May 4, 2009)

Seeing one of his key campaign proposals on life-support in Congress, Obama drags Energy Committee members to the White House to resuscitate this job-killing proposal:

“Waxman declined to comment when asked if the markup would start this week, saying only that he remains committed to moving the bill by Memorial Day…. But with the climate bill in dire straits at the subcommittee level, Obama decided it was time to weigh in.” (Darren Samuelsohn, ‘We’re working out the issues,’ House Dems say after Obama climate meeting, New York Times, 5/5/09)

“President Barack Obama summoned 36 House Democrats to the White House on Tuesday to urge them to agree on climate and energy legislation that is under increasing criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.” (Dina Cappiello, “White House, House GOP Convene Meetings on Climate,” The Associated Press, 5/5/09)

Still Democrats Aren’t Willing to Support a National Energy Tax:

“But House Democrats have yet to reach a deal on key aspects of the far-reaching package, including credits to affected industries, a timetable for reaching reductions in carbon emissions and the specifics of a new mandate for renewable electricity.” (Dennis and Newmyer, “Energy Reform Limps Ahead,” Roll Call, 5/6/09)

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF BAD POLICY:

Facing tough re-elections next year, Dems in manufacturing and energy-producing districts desperately distance themselves from the National Energy Tax:

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT): “Matheson has already been taking political shots from both sides on the bill. For example, the National Wildlife Federation ran full-page ads in the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune on Tuesday urging voters to call Matheson and ‘tell him it’s time to target climate change.’ The National Republican Congressional Committee on Monday issued a news release attacking him and questioning whether he will “support a national energy tax that could burden thousands and kill jobs.” (Davidson, “Matheson says Democrats moving too fast on climate-change bill,” Deseret News, 5/5/09)

Rep. Charles Melancon (D-LA): “At this point Melancon said he can’t support the draft because it would shut down the state’s energy coast. Melancon’s vote could have a detrimental effect on getting the measure out of committee. ‘I believe this bill would create an undue burden on families who are already paying too much in energy bills and on an industry that provides thousands of Louisianians with good jobs,’ Melancon said.” (Gerard Shields, “La. Democrats Key Figures In Federal Emissions Debate,” Baton Rouge Advocate, 5/2/09)

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): “‘What I’ve seen so far is nowhere near where it needs to be for me to support it,’ Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told POLITICO. ‘Any way you do it, it hurts Pennsylvania, especially western Pennsylvania.’ ‘I think cap and trade is bad policy,’ said Altmire.” (Alex Isenstadt, “Cap And Trade Hits Speed Bumps,” Politico, 4/27/09)

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH): “‘My understanding from what I’ve heard is it’s going to cause a big increase in our utility bills.’ Boccieri said the White House has been lobbying him heavily, but, ‘in its present form, cap and trade would be devastating to Ohio.’” (Robert Wang, “Boccieri Holds Telephone Town Hall Meeting,” Canton Repository, 3/25/09)

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Among coal-district Democrats like Hill, whose southeastern Indiana seat tilts conservative, reservations about a climate change bill are equally apparent. ‘I just can’t support it with the way it’s being proposed,’ said Hill, noting that 96 percent of Indiana is dependent on coal. ‘The bill in its current form is going to increase the rates for the people I represent.’” (Alex Isenstadt, “Cap And Trade Hits Speed Bumps,” Politico, 4/27/09)

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): “Rep. Mike Ross, Arkansas Democrat and one of the moderate members whom party leaders will have to persuade in order to secure passage, said he was concerned about the price consumers would have to pay if utilities passed along the cost of buying carbon permits to customers. ‘If you don’t like $4-a-gallon gasoline, you’re really not going to like your electric bill sometime between now and 2030,’ he said.” (Tom LoBianco, “House Lawmakers Take Stands In Hearings On Climate Change,” The Washington Times, 4/22/09)

10th Amendment

by

The Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

10th Amendment Center give us these as well:

10th Amendment Resolution Introduced in Wisconsin

Pleading the 10th in Georgia
– Serving Notice in New Mexico
– Sovereignty for Ohio
– Alaska Resolution: Sovereignty Under the 10th Amendment
– Michigan: The Confines and Original Intent

Liberalism in a Nutshell

by

What’s wrong with Liberalism in a nutshell thanks to C.S. Lewis and the Anchoress:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” C.S. Lewis

Longer version from Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr.’s in  The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.”