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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
An Ongoing Chronicle of the Follies and Foibles of the Obama Administration - Updated 7/3/09
Introduction
Though the Obama administration has only been in office for a matter of months, the sheer volume of missteps and blunders is truly incredible. It would be amusing were it not for the fact that the decisions made by the administration and our equally absurd Congress have an impact on each and every one of us. As a dedicated conservative libertarian, I am happy to take any opportunity to highlight the folly of big government and its apologists with the hope that I will contribute even in the tiniest way to the returning of our nation to its limited goverment roots.
Terence Corcoran of the Financial Post paints an accurate picture of the disgrace that is America's current political leadership:Helicopter Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U.S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.
As an aghast world — from China to Chicago and Chihuahua — watches, the circus-like U.S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?
Will America recover from its current trials? Corcoran is cautiously optimistic:Past success, however, is no guarantee of future recovery, especially now when there are daily disasters and new indicators of political breakdown. All developments are not disasters in themselves. The AIG bonus firestorm is a diversion from real issues , but it puts the ghastly political classes who make U.S. law on display for what they are: ageing self-serving demagogues who have spent decades warping the U.S. political system for their own ends. We see the system up close, law-making that is riddled with slapdash, incompetence and gamesmanship.
I couldn’t have said it better. The haphazard and disconnected policymaking coming from the administration and Congress is evidence that America's foremost challenge is a lack of good leadership.
With that, let's begin the chronicles of the days of the Obama administration. For further reading, check out a great piece that the New York Post did on Obama's first 100 days, entitled 100 Days, 100 Mistakes.
An Ongoing Chronicle of the Follies and Foibles of the Obama Administration
Verdict: Obama displays serious integrity issues by appointing Clinton. A man of principle would avoid even the slightest possibility of a conflict of interest.
1/6/2009 – Bill Richardson withdraws his nomination for Commerce Secretary over a grand jury investigation into allegations of corruption.
Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.
1/13/2009 – Revelations emerge that Obama’s nominee for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in taxes for work he did with the IMF a few years ago. It should be noted that the Treasury Secretary oversees the IRS. Geithner has since been confirmed to the post.
Verdict: Obama and Geithner both have some serious integrity issues.
1/23/2009 - Despite promises to bar recent lobbyists from positions where there could be conflicts of interest, Obama waives his highly-touted ethics rules to allow William Lynn, a former lobbyist for a defense contractor, to serve as Deputy Defense Secretary. Lynn served as a lobbyist as recently as last year.
Verdict: Broken promise, lack of integrity.
1/27/2009 – Obama waives his ethics rules again to allow former Goldman Sachs lobbyists Mark Patterson to serve as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s chief of staff. Patterson lobbied for Goldman Sachs as recently as last year. The Treasury Department “oversees the government's $700 billion financial bailout program. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of that money.”
Verdict: Broken promise, lack of integrity.
1/28/2009 - Democrats ram the economic stimulus package through the U.S. House of Representatives without even allowing time to read it. With 1000 pages and nearly $800 billion in spending, it is the largest spending package in United States history. In an absolutely disgraceful display of arrogance, the House leadership repeatedly shot down requests by Republicans to allow for more time to read and debate the bill.
Verdict: Incredible arrogance, poor judgement, and incompetence. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from our "esteemed" elected officials. Oh, and remember that Obama promised greater government transparency in the campaign by posting legislation for a few days online before signing. Did that happen in this case? No.
2/3/2009 – Tom Daschle withdraws his nomination as head of the Department of Health and Human Services because of a controversy over his non payment of $140,000 in taxes in recent years.
Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.
2/3/2009 – Nancy Killefer withdraws as Obama’s chief performance officer after “citing unspecified problems with District of Columbia unemployment tax.”
Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.
2/5/2009 – The confirmation of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary stalls because of unpaid taxes dating back to 1993. Solis is eventually confirmed.
Verdict: Serious integrity issues again.
3/2/2009 – Revelations emerge that Ron Kirk, Obama’s pick for US trade representative “owes an estimated $10,000 in back taxes from earlier in the decade and has agreed to pay them. The committee said the taxes arise from Kirk's handling of speaking fees he donated to a scholarship fund that he set up at his alma mater, and for his deduction of the full cost of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team.”
Verdict: Considering the relatively small amount owed, I'm willing to cut Obama some slack on this one. A high earner can incur back taxes of this amount simply because of a bad accountant. However, tax evasion does seems to be a common theme in the Obama administration.
3/7/2009 – Obama was “too tired” to give a proper welcome in his first state visit with our closest ally, Britain. According to people close to the administration, Obama’s team has “had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship”, including the usual press conference and state dinner”. Gordon gave Obama historically significant gifts, “including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk”. In exchange, Obama gave Brown, who is not much of a movie buff, a set of DVDs that won't even work on British DVD players. When The Sunday Telegraph questioned a State Department official about the unusually low-key visit, the response was that “there's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." Wow.
Verdict: Very poor judgement and a lack of forethought. As president, the minimum Obama should do is at least try to represent our nation well. In this case he definitely did not. Call it a rookie mistake? Maybe, but it could have easily been avoided with a little forethought.
3/17/2009 – “Cue the outrage. For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.” Incredibly, Obama told Jay Leno that he was “stunned” when he learned of the bonuses. “"We're going to do everything we can to get these bonuses back", he declared.” And get them back they will, with Nancy Pelosi leading the charge. She rammed through a bill late last week that retroactively taxes the AIG bonuses at a stiff 90% tax rate. Never mind that such a law is illegal under the U.S. Constitution.
Verdict: A disgraceful lack of integrity. This is political hackery at its worst. It was later revealed that the administration and Congress knew ahead of time that the AIG bonuses were going to be paid, yet the outrage only came forth when the public became outraged.
3/20/2009 - Obama creates another headache for himself by taking an offhanded swipe at the Special Olympics on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. It probably is safe to assume that Obama meant no harm by his comment, but he certainly didn't do himself any favors by making it.
Verdict: Kind of a dumb thing to do, but I would call it a simple gaffe. I know I've had my insert-foot-into-oral-orifice moments.
3/23/2009 - Obama is asked if he is "punch drunk" by Steve Kroft in a bizarre interview on 60 Minutes in which he answers questions about the financial crisis. Why did Obama keep laughing as he was answering questions about the economy? He didn't necessarily need to be deadly serious in the interview, but the laughing and chuckling was truly strange.
Verdict: Bizarre. Why is our president acting like this? This truly was a weird and creepy interview.
3/25/2009 – What is going on with Tim Geithner? Now that it appears the United States will be borrowing heavily to finance massive deficits and foreign creditors are already expressing doubts about the future stability of the dollar, Geithner comments that he is “open” to an alternative international reserve currency system to replace the U.S. dollar. Not surprisingly, the dollar sold-off sharply against other major currencies. According to Representative Michelle Bachman, R-MN, Geithner’s comments Wednesday directly contradicted previous comments:"During a Financial Services Committee hearing , I asked Secretary Geithner if he would denounce efforts to move towards a global currency and he answered unequivocally that he would," Bachmann said. "And President Obama gave the nation the same assurances. But just a day later, Secretary Geithner has left the option on the table. I want to know which it is. The American people deserve to know."
If the administration wants to restore the confidence of investors, it should start by presenting a unified message on the economy.
Verdict: Lack of consistency and integrity on the part of Timothy Geithner.
4/16/2009 - DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stands by an a ridiculous report issued by her agency that warns of the risks of "right-wing extremism" in America. According to the report, "groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority" or "are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration" are a potential risk to national security. You can read a copy of the report here.
Verdict: This is a display of extremely poor judgement and cheap partisan politics. If Obama really sees his political opposition as potential terrorists, we have good reason to fear for the future of our nation.
4/18/2009: Obama gives a cheery handshake to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad. Chavez has been a bold and vociferous critic of the United States, even calling former President George Bush "the devil" in a speech before the UN.
Verdict: Lack of principle on the part of Obama. A much cooler reaction to Chavez would have been appropriate to preserve the honor and dignity of the United States and the office of the president.
4/23/2009: A report by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York reveals that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pushed Bank of America to absorb Merrill Lynch last fall or face the possible removal of the board and management. Kenneth Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, testified "that he was told by Mr. Paulson to keep quiet about the deal’s new developments, even after it was clear that the bank was going to absorb much bigger-than-expected losses in buying Merrill." The problem here is that Bank of America is a publicly-traded company, and securities laws require that this kind of information be reported to shareholders.
Verdict: The jury is still out on this one in the hopes that Obama will do the right thing and make people pay for their illegal actions. Granted, the BofA/Merrill merger happened on Bush's watch, but will Obama do anything to rectify the situation? Something tells me he will not.
4/30/2009: The administration causes a serious scare for many New Yorkers by flying Air Force One low over the city solely for a photo op that reportedly cost the government around $300,000. A former Air Force officer who served in the Clinton White House reportedly accused the Obama administration of having "mistaken judgment" for flying Air Force One low over New York City this week. Retired Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson placed the blame for the stunt firmly on the president, as WorldNetDaily reports:"It defies my belief that the White House staff did not know they were launching the 747 to go up and do this. So it had to come down from the White House. It wouldn't have been done on behalf of the folks at Andrews [Air Force Base]. It would have been done at the direction of the White House."
Patterson summed up his thoughts as follows:I find it incredible with our current economic situation that we're flying 747s empty anywhere in the country, much less for a photo op. And again, they're so wantonly careless about this."
Verdict: Absolutely ridiculous display of poor judgement and arrogance. Obama had to know about this ahead of time. Did he not think that New Yorkers might get a little freaked out by this? Did he ever consider how stupidly wasteful something like this would be? With deficits running into the trillions, why is our government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to scare the crap out of New York and get a few Air Force One photos?
5/5/2009: Chrysler creditors allege that the Obama administration engaged in "hardball tactics" and "threats" in negotiations over the Chrysler bankruptcy. One individual "described the administration as the most shocking 'end justifies the means' group they have ever encountered." Another said "Obama was 'the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger'". Both individuals said they voted for Obama in the last election. One hedge fund manager struck back at the administration in a great letter that circulated around Wall Street. Read it here.
Verdict: No surprise. Saul Alinsky believed in these kind of tactics, so why is it a surprise that our president, who is a follower of Alinsky, would engage in them? Obama is not the man the mainstream media would have you believe he is.
6/1/2009: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner heads to China to meet with America's biggest creditor, China. While speaking before a crowd of university students, Geithner attempts to assure them that China's massive investments in US government debt are "safe" despite America's continuing reckless spending and debasement of the dollar. The response? Laughter.
Verdict: Sorry Timbo, the joke's on you. They saw straight through your BS.
7/1/2009: Wow, veteran reporter and ardent liberal Helen Thomas calls out White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how controlled media events are under the current administration. Check out the video below (Thomas speaks near the end of it):
In case you couldn't quite hear what Helen Thomas says, the following is the quote:"The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled..."
WOW. As fawning as the liberal media has been with the Obama Administration since day one, it is amazing to hear such a statement from one who is allied so closely with the administration. The thing is, she's right. Obama campaigned on the promise that his administration would be marked by openness and transparency, but time has proven his statements for what they were: pure BS.
Verdict: Openness and transparency are not chief among the concerns of the Obama Administration. Obama may have made it sound that way when he was running for office, but we already know that Obama is not an honest man.
To be continued...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Printing Presses Are Running Full Speed Ahead
The printing presses are running full speed ahead at the Federal Reserve as it pumps more money into the economy in an attempt to awaken it from the economic doldrums. Bloomberg reported recently that the Federal Reserve has completed its "eighth purchase of government securities" in its quantitative easing campaign, bringing the total amount of Treasuries acquired to $43.9 billion since the purchases began on March 25th. The Federal Reserve "plans to buy as much as $300 billion in U.S. debt over six months", further increasing a balance sheet that has already "more than doubled . . . in the past year". 1 As mindblowing as all this is, it is even more mindblowing that it is being advertised. Our government is making no effort to hide the fact that it is debasing our currency by creating money from thin air and buying up government debt.The consequences of all this? The article discusses that too:Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s plans may result in a higher cost of living, said Allan Meltzer, the central bank historian and professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Rising costs erode the value of the fixed payments from bonds.
Considering how much the Fed has expanded the money supply over the past year, I don't see how Meltzer could be wrong in his assessment. High inflation down the road seems to be pretty much "baked into the cake" at this point. Check out the following chart from the St. Louis Fed, which shows the expansion of the monetary base.
Inflation “will get higher than it was in the 1970s,” Meltzer said. At the end of that decade, consumer prices rose at a year-over-year rate of 13.3%. 2
What is scary and sobering about this chart is the fact that inflation in the monetary base has a direct impact on inflation in prices. Widespread price inflation is a symptom of monetary inflation, which is the growth of the money supply. More money in the economy means that more demand is placed on goods and services, which in turn, drives up prices for goods and services. If this is difficult to understand, think of it this way: imagine that Congress passes a new, even more massive stimulus package that gives everybody in America a check from the government for $10,000. What do you think the majority of people would do with that money? Spend at least a good part of it, right? All that spending would represent increased demand for goods and services, and as we all know from high school economics, higher demand leads to higher prices. As can be seen in the chart above, the monetary base has expanded massively over the past year. The only reason we haven't seen rampant price inflation yet is that banks are largely hoarding the money because they are afraid that if they lend it out they will never get it back. Once the economy begins to stabilize and bank lending begins to loosen up, all that hoarded money will begin to enter the economy, and the result may be a massive surge in price inflation.
References
1. Treasuries Gain After Federal Reserve Buys Government Debt. (April 13, 2009). Retrieved April 23, 2009 from, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahXVnbCqrqP8&refer=home.
2. Ibid.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Religious Freedom Increasingly Trumped by "Gay Rights"
An article in the Washington Post recently highlighted the disturbing trend of religious groups losing discrimination lawsuits to gay groups. The lawsuits, which are the direct result of states and communities banning "discrimination based on sexual orientation", are creating a "clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion". Unfortunately, it appears that religious freedom is increasingly losing to the interests of gay groups, putting the nation "on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views." 1 A few incidents cited in the article highlight the disturbing trend: - A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
Though gay groups constantly try to demonize their opponents with accusations of hatred, homophobia, bigotry, etc., many religious groups oppose the gay agenda primarily because of its implications for religious freedom:
- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage. 2"It really is all about religious liberty for us," said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. "The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles." 3
Religious freedom is my central concern as well. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior based on my Christian beliefs, but most concerning to me is the impact that the gay agenda will have on my freedom to have my beliefs. Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal certainly doesn't offer any comfort on the religious freedom issue:But gay groups and liberal legal scholars say they are prevailing because an individual's religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays' right to equal treatment under the law.
Though many gay activists will argue that religious conservatives have nothing to fear from gay groups over the issue of religious freedom, reality says otherwise. It is clear that gay groups intend for "gay rights" to trump religious freedom whenever and wherever the opposing views clash.
"We are not required to pay the price for other people's religious views about us," said Jennifer Pizer, director of the Marriage Project for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group. 4
We are moving into the dangerous and Orwellian realm of thought-control in this country; either religious conservatives embrace certain forms of thinking or they will be penalized. The Christians in the examples above landed in hot water because they refused their services explicitly because of their religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. But what if they didn't express opposition to homosexuality as the reason for refusing service? What if the New Mexico photographer and the Georgia psychologist were merely too busy to provide their services to the homosexuals that later sued them? Who is to say that they still wouldn't have been sued? Once it came out in court that they were religious and opposed to homosexuality the suit would have been a done deal anyway. Merely refusing service to homosexuals for any reason , no matter how non-discriminatory, might still land a Christian business owner in court.
Folks, let there be no illusion in your mind that the radical liberal Left truly believes in freedom. They do not, unless of course the freedom applies to them and their views. Gay groups have no qualms whatsoever about trampling underfoot your religious freedom for the sake of their radical agenda. It should be noted as well that Barack Obama fully embraces the homosexual agenda. It is highly doubtful that he could be relied upon to defend the interests of religious conservatives, even though he has repeatedly made the highly dubious claim of being a Christian.
References
1. Faith Groups Increasingly Losing Legal Battles Over Gay Rights. (April 10, 2009). Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040904063.html?hpid=topnews
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
Photo courtesy of freefoto.com.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/images/quotes_special.gif)
