Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Democrats Accuse Joe Wilson of Being Motivated by Racism
Talk radio host Mark Levin has said that liberals are obsessed with two things: sex and race. I couldn't agree more. Liberals are always obsessing about sex, whether it is pushing the limits of decency in public and the media, agitating for more sex education at younger ages, or conjuring up new rights based on sexual behaviors and preferences. The other liberal obsession, race, reared it's ugly and well-worn head once again today thanks in part to the perennially ridiculous Jimmy Carter, who claimed that "racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office". Carter commented as follows to NBC News:"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . . I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
Carter continued with the following:
"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.""I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president . . . The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
As disgraceful as these comments are, even more ridiculous were comments made by Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, regarding Rep. Joe Wilson. The following is from FOX News:Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.
Liberals absolutely cannot let the issue of race go. Will there ever come a day when the scourge of slavery and institutionalized discrimination will be buried forever, never to be dredged up? Or is the charge of racism just far too tempting a way for liberals to demonize their opponents? The comments by Carter and Rep. Johnson are absolutely disgraceful and inexcusable. We will never be free from the legacy of racism as long we tolerate irresponsible race-baiters that continue to saddle our society with guilt for the sins of the past.
Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked. He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Stimulating the Economy With Pork . . . Literally
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack apparently was annoyed at Matt Drudge for pointing out that stimulus dollars were spent on pork - real pork, as in ham products. According to the New York Daily News, "federal bean counters had spent $1.19 million for '2 pound frozen ham sliced.' An additional $16.7 million contract was earmarked simply for 'canned pork'." Vilsack claimed "the purchases for sliced ham and other contracts - including mozzarella and other cheeses - were to provide soup kitchens and homeless shelters with food for the needy." Nevermind the fact that Vilsack formerly was the governor of Iowa and that Iowa is "the nation's No. 1 pork producer." 1 It certainly makes sense that he would defend the purchases since it was his own former constituents that directly benefitted. It also wouldn't be surprising if this pork project was payback for some campaign contributions to Iowa's congressional delegation.
As annoying as it is that the federal government spends money this way, what is most galling is the fact that Vilsack "argued that buying hams for poor people would stimulate the economy, in line with Obama's $787 billion stimulus package." 2 Vilsack said the following:"While the principal purpose of these expenditures is to provide food to those hardest hit by these tough times . . . the purchases also provide a modest economic benefit . . . [to] food retailers, manufacturers and transportation companies as well as the farmers and ranchers who produce our food supply." 3
If this kind of thinking resulted in just a few million dollars of federal pork barrel spending every year, maybe it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The problem is that this kind of thinking currently permeates through all levels of government. The belief is essentially this: if the government spends money to buy stuff for people it is stimulating the economy because businesses are being supported by government funds. The businesses can employ new people, purchase new equipment, new inventory, etc. That's a good thing, isn't it? Well, that depends on how you look at it. The problem is that most people seem to only acknowledge one side of the equation. Sure, government money stimulates pork producers when it is used to purchase nearly $18 million in pork products. I'm sure the employees of the pork producers got bonuses, bought stuff, went on vacation, etc. But didn't that $18 million have to come from somewhere? Before the government can give money to one person, does it not first have to take it from another?
Frederic Bastiat, a French philosopher, economist, and statesmen who lived in the 19th century, illustrated the fallacy of Vilsack's thinking with the parable of the broken window. The parable, reproduced below, is part of a larger work entitled That Which is Seen And That Which is Not Seen that is well worth reading.Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation - "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
With regard to federal purchases of pork products, "that which is seen" is that pork producers are wealthier because the federal government spent $18 million on pork products. However, "that which is not seen" is that $18 million or more will have to be extracted from taxpayers to cover it. Taxpayers, in turn, will have less money to spend on other things. The net benefit of this kind of spending actually is zero because money was simply moved from one hand to another with a little skimmed off the top for government overhead. No new wealth was created in the process, therefore the economy gained nothing. If buying pork products is so beneficial to the economy, why don't we increase the spending to $18 billion? Why not have the government buy up all the agricultural products currently available for sale in the entire country? Wouldn't that benefit the economy because all the farmers and ranchers who would suddenly be flush with cash to spend on cars, flat screen TVs, and iPods? Maybe that would be true in Vilsack's world, but in the real world things work a little differently.
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade - that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs - I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window. 4
Government money is well spent if it prudently invested in projects that directly support wealth creation, such as roads and energy infrastructure. Purchasing $18 million worth of pork products was not stimulus, it was a handout to favored constituents. The "stimulus" rationale was simply the cover story used to justify it.
References
1. Drudge story on pork draws ire from President Obama's agriculture chief. (July 21, 2009). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/07/21/2009-07-21_obama_admin_calls_drudge_pork_story_slop.html
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Frederick Bastiat, What is Seen and What is Unseen. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Senator Barbara Boxer Gets Taken Down a Few Notches
How the heck did Barbara Boxer get elected to the US Senate anyway? Even the San Francisco liberals who overwhelmingly voted for her have to be embarrassed by her latest gaffe. In a recent hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Boxer plays the racial politics game and elicits a strong response from Harry C. Alford, the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce. Alford apparently expect to testify about the specifics of energy policy, yet Boxer apparently was only interested in getting him to fall in line with other black groups like the NAACP. Check out the video below, and feel free to cheer out loud at how Alford brings Boxer down a few notches.
If there is one thing worth noting about Boxer, it's that she is incredibly arrogant. Check out how she handled this exchange with a General in the US military:
Amazing, isn't it? Maybe Boxer should consider how hard the General worked to get where he is instead of talking to him as if he's a bratty teenager. In the military, addressing a woman as "ma'am" is a sign of respect. Boxer is wrong to take offense to it and even more wrong to publicly chastise him for it.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Peter Schiff: The Upcoming Minimum Wage Hike Will Make Unemployment Even Worse
Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital wrote a great editorial this week about the upcoming minimum wage hike and the impact it will have on an already terrible unemployment situation in the United States. In short, minimum wage laws are a form of price controls on labor that can lead to a shortage of available jobs, particularly for low-income workers. Business owners faced with a minimum wage hike may deem it too expensive to pay people minimum wage for certain positions, therefore they eliminate the positions altogether and shift the responsibilities onto other workers. The end result is fewer jobs available and higher unemployment. Schiff's article contains a lot of great points, check it out here.
I also wrote about the problems with minimum wage policies. Check it out here.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Don't Want to Buy Health Insurance? Tough Beans.
The push by the White House and Democrats in Congress for universal health care is getting more ridiculous by the day, and the end result will be that we'll all end up with far less freedom. It is an absolutely indisputable fact that as government grows, freedom decreases. There can be no other way. Why? Because government is force. It is coercion. Government is the long arm of the law reinforcing certain behaviors and discouraging others under penalty of the law. If you increase the scope of government influence over the lives of citizens, they will have less freedom to make their own decisions. Government makes more decisions for them, or completely eliminates the freedom to make some decisions altogether. Case in point: don't want to bother spending money on health insurance? Our benevolent caretakers in Congress might take away your choice in the matter altogether. According to a new bill introduced in the Senate, "Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday". 1 Folks, this is the essence of socialism. Nanny politicians increasingly take away your ability to manage your own affairs and instead make you the subservient wards of the great socialist state. You apparently cannot take care of yourself, therefore socialist politicians who are far smarter and far more enlightened must do it for you. How can we possibly remain a free people when this is the kind of garbage flung upon us by our elected representatives? There is a reason F.A. Hayek called his classic treatise about the evils of socialism The Road to Serfdom. If we continue to tolerate the nonsense coming from the useless idiots running our federal government, we will find ourselves mere serfs in our own great land.
References
1. Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage. (July 2, 2009). Retrieved July 3, 2009 from, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD996I6VO0
Representative Randy Forbes on Our Judeo-Christian Heritage
Representative Randy Forbes, a Republican from Virginia, recently made some great comments on the floor of the House of Representatives regarding the Judeo-Christian heritage of our nation. See the video below the fold.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Geithner Tells Chinese "Your Assets Are Safe". The Crowd Laughs.
Isn't it the Left that is always concerned about how the rest of the world perceives America? Well, maybe they should take note of the fact that the fiscal and economic policies of the Obama Administration have become a source of grim amusement for the Chinese and a national disgrace for the United States. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is overseas for a few days this week to pay homage to America's biggest creditor, China. Seeking to reassure Chinese leaders that their dollar investments are safe despite America's mind-blowing fiscal recklessness, he had the nerve to tell the Chinese that the United States believes in a "strong dollar". 1 C'mon Tim, who are you kidding? The Chinese are not stupid. They understand full well that what Timothy doeth and what Timothy saith are two entirely different things. It is not a secret that the US government is openly sacrificing the dollar in an attempt to prop up the markets and well-connected Wall Street banks. If the US government really believed in a strong dollar, it wouldn't be throwing trillions of borrowed and printed dollars into bailouts, toxic assets, and massive "stimulus" bills that Congress doesn't even bother to read. Despite being a part of a culture that tends to speak indirectly, former Chinese central bank advisor Yu Yongding didn't mince words in an email relating to Geithner's visit:Referring to the Federal Reserve "as the world’s biggest junk investor," and to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke as "helicopter Ben," Yu said the Fed has dropped "tons of money from the sky since the subprime crisis."
Ouch. Speaking at Peking University, Geithner reassured students as well that Chinese dollar assets are "safe". Their response?
"The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve not only has expanded like mad but is also ridden with 'rubbish' assets," he said. 2
Laughter. 3
What a disgrace. What a national embarrassment. Even Chinese University students can see how ridiculous Geithner is.
...how many more days is it until the next presidential election again?
References
1. Geithner Tells China Its Dollar Assets Are Safe. (June 1, 2009). Retrieved June 1, 2009 from, http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSPEK14475620090601?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0.
2. Global Crisis 'Inevitable' Unless US Starts Saving, Yu Says. (June 1, 2009). Retrieved June 1, 2009 from, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCV0pFcAFyZw.
3. Geithner Tells China Its Dollar Assets Are Safe.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/images/quotes_special.gif)
