Eliminate "Gov-co"

Why doesn't McDonald's charge $40 for a cheeseburger? After all it'd more profitable. Why does Wal-Mart or the Dollar General or 5andDimes or Goodwill even exist if name-brand stores can charge as high as "the wealthy" can pay? Most people seem to inherently understand the cause-and-effect of prices and competition in the retail market. But is that only because we see it everyday in our current lives?

Consider an alternative history where during the Great Depression, advocates for the poor pressured the govt to pass a bill that created "Gov-co" retail stores. Gov-co stores are a nation-wide chain that provide cheap, generic food and goods for the poor at massively discounted prices (subsidized by taxes). Adjusted for inflation, they had prices like $1 for a new pair of tennis shoes or a button up shirt or $10 for new car tires or $20 for a new dishwasher because the rest of the cost of the goods is subsidized with taxes. At such discounted prices, no private company can compete and so not only have Gov-co stores became a national chain in virtually every town, but now the only alternative to those Gov-co stores are high-end, brand name stores selling high-end goods that cost top dollar and are only affordable to the middle class and above. At this point, very few really remember what it was like before Gov-co existed. People only recognize that only "the rich" can afford the brand name goods. But that only reinforces the need for a Gov-co to provide affordable goods for the poor.

Unfortunately, people have recognized that while the prices of Gov-co goods have remained stable (only raising with inflation), the quality of the goods has not. In addition, the quality and price of goods in the south is slightly different than the price and quality in the northeast as well as differences between urban, suburban and rural communities. Meanwhile, brand name goods continue to improve and increase in quality, though prices still cannot compete with Gov-co.

People are decrying the further and further separation between what the poor can afford vs what the rich can afford. In fact, they point out that the rich are able to afford goods that make them more productive and able to make more money compared to the poor. Something must be done. Many advocate to increase tax spending on Gov-co products to help increase the quality while keeping the prices low. Others advocate setting mandated regulations - maybe even establishing a federal agency to oversee and inspect manufacturers to ensure sufficient and consistent quality products. Tweaks to the system are constantly introduced, customer feedback mechanisms, product quality control tests are standardized, but nothing appears to really be improving the situation. (Not to strain the analogy, but imagine if IN ADDITION to everything else, if you did choose to shop at Gov-co instead of the brand name stores, you could only shop at your local Gov-co nearest your home.)

In such a situation, if someone advocated simply and completely eliminating Gov-co and allowing the free market to work in the retail space, I think few would dispute that there would be large numbers of people pointing at those high-end stores that cater to the more well-off and decry "What about the poor?" and lament that the poor would go hungry and naked because they couldn't afford to buy from those high-end stores. They'd claim that those private stores would just continue to charge high prices because people have to have food and clothing and stuff, right? The suggestion to completely eliminate Gov-co would be treated as nonsense - of being harsh, unsympathetic, and cruel. Accusations would abound that advocates are only concerned for the rich or are "in the pocket of big business".

But in reality, we know that without a Gov-co, we actually have a vibrant retail market with an enormous segment dedicated specifically to low-income consumers. Stores like mentioned above: Wal-Mart, Dollar General, 5andDimes, Goodwill, etc. all directly aim to serve low-income consumers. Critics of eliminating Gov-co overlook that the poor are a market in and of themselves and that many companies would move into that market to serve them - providing cheaper goods for lower prices and that competition in that market would help improve quality while keeping prices low.

Now this understanding that free market competition DOES encourage businesses to keep prices low and to increase the quality to attract customers is pretty common. We seem to inherently understand this about retail goods because we see it in action everyday. But many seem to have a problem with the idea that the same effects and incentives apply to education as to retail goods - I would argue, because we're only familiar with the current setup where only "the rich" can afford private schools.

Those who suggest simply eliminating public education are dismissed as naive. They are told, often even by other advocates of limited-govt, that without public education, the poor wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school, only continuing the generational poverty and further widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Perhaps another look at the nature of competition in a free market, only in a different market, may help them see that we cannot simply assume that the current structure of "only the rich can afford private education" would continue if we eliminated public education. In fact, based on looking at other markets like retail, there is significant evidence to conclude that education providers would likely actively focus and pursue low-income customers.

Eliminating public education and allowing free market competition into the market for education couldn't be a whole lot worse than modern public education in many places, and it has the potential to be much, much better.

Conversation with a Conservative: A compromise between a Conservative and a Libertarian on Immigration

I had a conversation about immigration with a ardent die-hard conservative Republican recently. I feel the discussion was valuable. I got a better sense of their concerns on the issue and it's more than just "foreigners are bad" or "they took our jobs" or "terrorists!!" like many seem to caricature them to be and in addition to educating them on the libertarian perspective, got their thoughts on that perspective.

For background, my ideal immigration policy is no policy - open borders, no govt required registration. Nobody is directly being harmed by people simply crossing a political line in the dirt. However, there are challenges to that view right now due to the policies of our current govt. For example, we currently face a threat from terrorism that our foreign policy exacerbates and invites. If you also have a non-interventionist foreign policy, I believe your risk from the threat of terrorism is significantly less and thus the need (or perceived need) to comb over every person that gets in an airplane or visits from another country is drastically reduced.

At the same time, however, I am a strong pragmatist and feel that libertarians are not going to get anywhere close to a free society by just declaring the govt is immoral and demanding that everyone stop using it. So I am often more willing to compromise on issues than I feel many libertarians are.

After a nearly 2 hour discussion with my conservative friend, we were able to reach an agreed-upon compromise for immigration reform:

Application process is a background check
A single, simple form to apply for immigration. This form should only require the basic information to identify the person and will be used to perform a background check. The only purpose of the entire application process is to determine if you are a threat to others - i.e. if you have a violent criminal history, ties to terrorists, etc. If you do not, you're free to enter the country at your earliest convenience. No multi-month/year long process of various approvals for different types of immigration.

This should change the legal immigration process from taking months or even years to a couple weeks. By making the process significantly more simple as well as shorter, I feel it will make legal immigration much more attractive compared to the risk and disadvantages of illegal immigration. In addition, with a drastically smaller number of illegal immigrants I think illegal immigration itself will be easier to deal with and certainly less of a problem.

A one-time fee
Applying for legal immigration will require a flat fee that simply pays for the cost of performing the paperwork and background check - no more, no less.

No fines or back taxes
There's little value beyond retribution in trying to excise fines or figure and collect back taxes on illegal immigrants already here. Besides, it would likely cost more in trying to audit and calculate those taxes on individuals who likely earned little income and have no record of it than the tax itself would amount to.

No English fluency/literacy requirements or tests
This is simply unnecessary. Plus, allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows of illegality would likely lead to them being more likely to assimilate and learn the dominant national language.

No expiration on legal immigration
There's nothing immoral and nobody is directly harmed by someone remaining here after govt has told them that they have stayed here long enough. If they are not a direct physical threat to anyone, there's no reason to put a time limit on their stay here.

Eliminate the dozen+ types of immigration statuses
A single status, either legal or not. Whether you're coming here for a single business meeting, a week long trip, a summer tour, or to live here for years doesn't matter. As long as you are not a threat to anyone, govt shouldn't care.

Secure the border
If you're going to have any immigration policy and any restrictions or controls on those who come in, it makes little sense if people can bypass and disregard the law and the process anyway. Frankly, however, I believe that the rest of the policies in this compromise would drastically reduce the demand for illegal immigration and thus reduce the need to aggressively patrol and defend the border as we do currently. I'm not sure how effective any attempt at securing the border would be or the costs involved, but I'm fine with enacting it as part of a bill.

No Federal Welfare
One of the concerns of many conservatives are those unskilled immigrants that come here and directly latch onto the govt dole. As a compromise between no restrictions whatsoever and no welfare whatsoever, we agreed that legal immigrants should be able to take advantage of as many state and local govt assistance programs as they are eligible for, but they should not be eligible for federal govt welfare programs. This is a basic decentralization/"laboratories of democracy" position (I hold the same pragmatic position on all welfare programs). Get the national govt out of it and let the states and localities decide how and to what extent to provide assistance to people - in this case immigrants.

Eligible for citizenship after a period
An immigrant can apply for naturalized citizenship after 10 years from the point they were approved for legal immigrant status. Time period is debatable, 10 years was just what we came up with, but some period of time from the point they received approval should be required before they can apply for full citizenship.

---

I just barely touched on these items to convey the basic premise. But it seemed like a good compromise that deals with both the concerns of conservatives while making the system and process more simple and open.

So what do you think? What does this overlook? What problems (besides political) might this create?

Why I don't think Gingrich is a true, limited govt conservative

Newt Gingrich is toward the top of the pack again. I believe this is because Romney is really looking too moderate for many conservatives to swallow, so they are looking for someone that is a true conservative. They are willing to overlook his past indiscretions because they feel that Newt is not only a real conservative, but that his debating skills make him a perfect match against Obama (the real goal of many Republicans: Anyone, anything but Obama).

The problem is that his record and many of his statements in the past don't reflect a true, limited govt conservative. Though I don't blame conservatives for being misled, Gingrich knows exactly what conservatism is and how to sell it. So with this upswing in support for Newt, I wanted to put together my thoughts on him at the moment and why I think conservatives need to be real careful about what they think they will get in Newt.

Pro-[Choice/Life] isn't Anti-Freedom

I frequently see people on both sides of the abortion debate that point to the other side and accuse the other position of being "anti-freedom" or "incompatible with freedom". Problem is, as I see it, neither side can make that claim.

It seems to me that at some point, the right of the child to live overrides the right of the mother to choose to kill it. Most reasonable people will concede that this point is some time before it's actually born. Thus we are really just debating what that point should be.

For people like Ron Paul, his view is that the freedom to live is more important than the freedom to choose what to do with your own body. That's his view, but he recognizes that not all share it. In addition to that, he has said that Constitutionally, he would not allow a federal level mandate one way or another.

Personally, I'm not sure there is a "correct" answer politically that will satisfy everyone.

This is because, more generically, the problem is that abortion creates a paradox for individualism because you have two people occupying the same space at the same time and the exercise of rights by one is an infringement on the rights of the other.

In either case, you are infringing on someone's rights. Either you protect the right of the baby to live and infringe on the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body, or you choose to protect the right of the mother to choose what to do with her own body and infringe on the right of the child to live.
So, agree or disagree with him about the point at which he feels we should recognize and protect a life, but it's not anti-liberty or anti-freedom.

In fact, Paul's actual policy prescription is a good compromise. Instead of a federal, top-down mandate that states that abortions are either all legal or all illegal, he allows the people of each state to decide. This will create a diverse environment that allows different views to be respected.

For example, while some states ban abortions, and some states permit even late-term abortions, perhaps a few other states would pass a law that legalizes abortion up to the 8th month, but that all abortions after the first 10 weeks must be done painlessly such as with lethal injection or an anesthetic that puts the baby to sleep first. This should satisfy most all pro-choice individuals since their ability to get an abortion isn't infringed. This could satisfy many pro-life individuals since the baby itself would not suffer or feel any pain. Reasonable compromise? I don't know.

Through this method of allowing multiple, different approaches that Paul is advocating, I think a more acceptable common ground can be reached.

How Ron Paul should respond to accusations about his record

In the debates over the weekend, Rick Santorum accused Ron Paul of being "on the margins". Santorum implies that Paul would be an ineffectual President stating (paraphrased) "Out of over 600 bills, you've only had 4 come up for a vote and only 1 that has passed."

I guess in Santorum's worldview, since the same Congress that has continually concentrated control in Washington over the decades doesn't want to hear measures that would relinquish that power, Paul isn't doing things right. Here's how I'd love to hear Ron Paul respond:

Wait a minute, are you saying that because we have a Congress that has passed such bills as the National Defense Authorization Act, the bailouts and stimulus, and Obamacare, a Congress that will stuff multiple unrelated measures into a single bill that gets both sides something they want and a plausible excuse to give their base as to why they voted for it, a Congress that will use trickery, loopholes, and bribes to pass unpopular bills (and then congratulates themselves on legislative creativity), a Congress that frequently does not read the bills they are voting on, a Congress that throws taxpayers money around at endeavors like a bridge to nowhere (that my opponent here voted for), ethanol subsidies, and Solyndra, a Congress that continues to raise the debt ceiling while it has not had a balanced budget in virtually my entire tenure and hasn't passed a budget at all in the last 3 years, a Congress that cozies up to special interests and lobbyists and who often outsources the writing of complex bills to corporate insiders, a Congress with an 8% approval rating, because *that* Congress refuses to even debate my bills, are you saying that reflects negatively on me?

[optional]

I'm more concerned with finding common areas of agreement and forming coalitions for freedom. I've been accused by my opponents of working with Democrats and leftists like Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich - and this is true. But because I can agree with Frank on the need to get the federal govt out of trying to restrict medical marijuana doesn't mean I agree with him on his banking regulations. Because I can find common ground with Sanders regarding the Federal Reserve, doesn't mean I agree with him on his economic views. Because I can work with Kucinich to try to change our interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean I agree with his views on govt funded health care. Working with people with whom you disagree 95% of the time to get things in that 5% accomplished doesn't make you a sellout, it's how you build coalitions to fight a battle for liberty without losing your principles.

[/optional]

No, this accusation reveals the mentality of Washington insiders: that "getting things done" is more important than what is actually done. That has to stop. 

3 Simple Steps to talking to Conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy

One of the biggest hindrances to conservatives supporting Ron Paul is his foreign policy. Some of the most vocal like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc say that he's right on almost everything, except foreign policy. Here's how I've started talking to conservative friends and family about his foreign policy and have convinced most to agree with Ron Paul.

1) The purpose of terrorism

Ask them why the terrorists attack us. If they say our freedom and prosperity, ask them why they aren't attacking Australia, or Japan, or Sweden? Why is the US the "Great Satan"? Then point out that if you  look at the 1998 fatwa, bin Laden's letter right after 9/11, his letter in 2002 or 2006, or the statements of various other terrorists and the core justification behind all of the attacks was our continued military presence, intervention and sanctions on countries in the middle east.

Then ask them, if we were to implement RP's foreign policy - a foreign policy NOT of isolationism, but of non-interventionism; if we were to end the active combat around the world; if we were to return our troops home from over 700 bases in over 135 countries; if we were to stop just giving money to foreign countries, countries that are often ran by authoritarian dictators; if we were to focus our defense spending on strengthening measures of ACTUAL defense; if we were to ensure a strong international intelligence network; if we are open, friendly and freely trade with all countries; if we were to do all of that, (besides saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year), why would they attack us? What would be the purpose? What would they be trying to get us to STOP doing by threatening attack?

If they reply that they believe that without provokation or justification, Muslims will simply attack us, minding our own business, for no other reason than to get their virgins or similar, then point out that they are confusing a rationalization for a justification. Ask them if they've ever asked an Islamic terrorist why they would attack us, and then state that their view is nothing but a ridiculous and ignorant caricature - even of Islamic extremists.

2) Support for Israel

"We cannot abandon Israel to be destroyed." is another common theme (usually among Christians). Yet, Israel has taken care of itself numerous times and dealt with various threats itself, often against US recommendations. Ask them exactly how taking a non-interventionist policy would hurt Israel.

Hurt Intelligence? It is generally admitted that Israel's intelligence network in the middle east is superior to the US.

Hurt Budget? On average, we give Israel $2.5 billion a year (Source), over 90% of which are military grants.

Hurt Military/Weapons? Israel is one of the most well trained military groups in the world. Our money doesn't make or break that. Nor is there any reason to believe that Israel would not be able to produce/purchase their weaponry or would be left "defenseless" if we left.

However, there may actually be an upside for Israel. One of the things that comes with that money to Israel is leverage. The US uses that money as a way to apply pressure on Israel to try to control/influence how it responds to threats. Thus the US, who does not face the same threats as Israel, tries to tell Israel how it must deal with certain situations and threats. This isn't right. Israel should be free to decide how to deal with its threats without US coercion. We remove that money, we remove the restriction on how Israel defends itself.

I would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy would be better for both sides.

3) World's Police 

Another potential rebuttal is that the US is the only country that can keep the threats of the world at bay. If the US isn't the world's police, who would be?

Firstly, ask them why there needs to be one? Countries can join together voluntarily and address a threat the presents itself without trying to constantly have our boot on the neck of every country in the world.

Secondly, that job brings with it enormous animosity and a monumental expense. Our habit of trying to intervene and control all international events in our favor has helped cause the animosity and resentment that we're dealing with now. And with the current economic and govt spending, we simply cannot afford to be that police force anymore. In addition, we put our young men and women at risk and in harms way, to be injured or even killed, not necessarily to fight a clear and immediate danger to the US, but to squash potential resentment and backlash.

Thirdly, read and find articles to present them evidence on blowback. Here's a good example to start with.

Summary

Basically, our current foreign policy of preemptive military assault, regime change, and nation building does NOT make us safer. It creates an environment where MORE animosity grows and additional terrorists are cultivated.

What would make us safer would be to remove the very complaints that terrorists have against us, that cost us enormous amounts of money and lives anyway, to spend more effort on intelligence and actual "defense" instead of offense, and to be a free and open trading partner with all nations. Where trade flows free, there is peace. Where trade is blocked, war will follow."


TL;DR

Talking to conservatives about Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy:

1) Point out that the terrorists attack us because of our intervention and military presence.

2) Point out that US support for Israel doesn't make or break the country and removing the monetary aid may, in fact, give Israel more freedom and flexibility in how it deals with threats.

3) Being the world's police is enormously expensive in both money and, more importantly, in lives. But beyond that, it doesn't work. Trying to militarily control the world CREATES animosity and generates terrorism.

UPDATE:
Let me also say, Don't give up! With the people I talked to, it was always multiple conversations. I generally just said the same things in response to their same complaints. They seemed to wear a little with each one. And note that NONE of them changed their minds while talking to me. It was only weeks later after having heard these points and going back to their normal lives that they ended up changing their mind.

Stop Subsidizing Everything!!

An article from the Cato Institute describes my frustration with "part-time" conservatives:

Government Support for Nuclear Energy Misguided

Peter van Doren have long argued that the case for government intervention in energy markets is flimsy: "Despite promises in the 1950s that nuclear power would soon become 'too cheap to meter,' 50 years of lavish federal subsidies and regulatory preferences have yet to produce an industry that can turn a profit without taxpayer help."Calling the plan "radioactive corporate welfare," Taylor says the plan is highly misguided:President Obama announced this week he would allocate billions of dollars in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power plant in Georgia, the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in thirty years. Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and

A good default proposition regarding the government's role in the economy would state that the government should not loan money to an enterprise if the enterprise in question cannot find one single market actor anywhere in the universe to loan said enterprise a single red cent. It might suggest — I don't know — that the investment is rather … dubious. Alas, like all good propositions regarding the government's role in the economy, this one is being left by the roadside by the Obama administration.

Many conservatives who regularly defend free and open markets praised Obama's decision to subsidize nuclear energy. The editors of National Review wrote, "the president has sent a clear message to the country — and to environmentalists — that nuclear will be part of the country's future energy mix. For that message, he deserves our approbation." Cato scholars have repeatedly warned against supporting such subsidies in energy markets, criticizing so-called "free-market advocates" who lose their way when it comes to energy policy. Taylor and Van Doren write: 

Rather than defend free markets, [conservatives] bang the table about the need for national energy plans and government timetables for energy-plant construction…. How is the conservative case for the above subsidies any different from the liberal case for subsidizing solar or wind energy, or high-mileage automobiles — or, for that matter, the case for government backing of financial institutions and automobile companies? It isn't, and conservatives should not check their skepticism about central planning and the bureaucratic ordering of markets at the door when they walk into the energy-policy funhouse.

Taylor and Van Doren further outline a plan for sound energy policy in the Energy Chapter of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers. For more, read Richard L. Gordon's 2008 Policy Analysis on energy policy and government subsidies that makes the case against government intervention in energy markets.

I recognize that nuclear is good, necessary, and a WAY better energy generator than wind and solar. But encourage it by LOWERING REGULATIONS/RESTRICTIONS!!! Stop thinking the only way that anything will ever develop is if government throws money (Other People's Money) at that market.

When supposedly fiscal/limited government conservatives jump on the subsidizing bandwagon just because that money would be going toward something they like or agree with, it makes me question the validity of their claims of truly being limited government. I know, I know, "But we need energy independence ASAP! It's about our national security. It's about lowering energy costs for those struggling. We can't wait to battle for lower regulations or for the market to mature itself. We must act

now!"

Sound frighteningly like another party I know.

Forms of Government

I believe this video explains well the various forms of government.

While it can be debated whether there have been actual monarchies and about what anarchy would look like, I think it effectively conveys the difference between a republic and a democracy. We were not intended to just be simple majority rule nation. That can be seen in how the US founders required 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress to pass it AND 3/4 of all states ratifying it to enact a Constitutional amendment. It was not intended to be easy to make changes; to increase the reach and power of the national, federal government.

And I hope that everyone agrees that an oligarchy is undesirable. Even in the case where that oligarchy is several thousand in size, consisting of elected officials, bureaucrats, and various "experts", you still run into problems of bias, corruption and mistakes creating unforeseen problems that pervade the entire country or market.


Though I disagree with the 1 dimensional description of the political spectrum. I believe that it is a 2D  spectrum similar to the  Nolan Chart.

To me, this is a good example of the two ideas of Liberty and "Security" with regard to both Personal and Economic issues.

In this particular example, it places individuals to represent where their views are located. While you can disagree with the placement of the individuals in that example, the chart itself is great to map out most anyone's nuanced political views.

At the same time however, I'm willing to settle with simply going back to federalism. As long as the federal government gets out of the habit of making national laws regarding personal and economic matters and leaves that up to the states as was originally intended (see Ninth and Tenth amendments) then I think we'd all be better off.

Even many progressives believe that the idea of "laboratories of democracy"; of having 50 individual states attempting to find solutions to problems is more efficient and effective than a single national attempt which can take 20, 30, 50, 100 years to recognize as a bad idea. And by then, the political debate all too often revolves around how to fix the problem created by the implemented solution instead of asking, "Is there a different, better solution to the original problem?"

For the curious, I believe I fall between the classical liberal and the market liberal. 

I suppose there could be some entertainment from telling people I'm a liberal, then go on to describe my views :)

Say what you will, I like the guy

You can joke about him crying, about him being a goofball, about him being overdramatic, about him being more about sensationalism than realism, but I like him.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36618/

Glenn Beck's keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was impressive. It touched on all the things that fiscal conservatives are demanding and used actual history and stats to reinforce the point. Not much was discussed regarding social conservatism, to which I say all the better considering the economic state of affairs. Best of all, he expressed a skepticism about the Republican party and their limited government intentions that I don't hear enough. Plus ... you gotta love the chalkboard. :)

Oh, and Jon, talk about missing the forest for the trees.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/23/stewart-to-glenn-beck-you_n_472826.html

Conservatives don't want to get rid of public libraries. Please explain the logic behind claiming conservatives who advocate for enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th amendments to limit the federal government, are somehow hypocritical because they use public libraries. Not everything paid for with taxes is evil communism. We just think that falls squarely outside the enumerated powers of the federal government (as does a LOT of what the federal government is doing nowadays). If states and city/counties want to fund their own libraries with taxes, then by all means they can do so and most conservatives would support that.

If you truly believe that there is a group trying to get rid of all public libraries... Well, you're right. They're called libertarians. I agree with them on many, many things. But I tell you what, if you're worried, I think libertarians would be willing to put "Eliminate Public Libraries" LITERALLY at the end of their list of priorities. 

The Core Problem with Collectivism

"Concentration of money and authority in any single entity NECESSARILY attracts those who would abuse that power for their own selfish interest."

- Ryan Roland

I say this to those who believe that centralized planning can work; that government control is not only necessary in some instances, but better and preferred in many; that the free market and decentralization just doesn't work. Beyond the fact that such management is necessarily a direct and intolerable restriction on freedom, here's my core problem with the theory.

Let us assume that Barack Obama (or someone) were to create a more centrally planned America. And even more surprisingly, let us assume that it works. That somehow, everything is balanced, everything runs, everything is regulated, everything is allocated, those that can, produce, and those that need, receive. And in this instance, despite all the real world evidence and all the logic and common sense, the collectivists' dreams are realized. Let us say that it came about through genuine compassion and thoughtful prudence and planning. These planners were genuine in their desire to better mankind and designed a system that provides for all. For a decade after their ideas were initially put into action, they gave their system careful tending, feeding and nurturing and it all went smoothly.

Now what?

Well it is my belief that things would eventually turn sour (and relatively quickly). The reason for this is that even if the creators of such a Utopian dream had the very best and genuine of intentions, eventually those who created and nurtured the system would be replaced.  They might die or retire or simply be replaced by someone else. This is where things get hairy.

The economy is a complicated system. Therefore, the system put in place to organize, plan and coordinate it would not only be large, but would necessarily be even more complicated and intricate. By creating such an almighty redistributive machine, they have created massive channels of money and it requires oversight and regulatory agencies with phenomenal powers of authority. This type of power is like honey to flies for those that seek power. And unfortunately, many of those that seek power, wish to use that power to "help" themselves and those around them. And I don't even need to go into detail to describe (since we see it happen all the time) the means by which a corrupt person placed in a position of power, can cause problems.  And as we see with most politicians, even if things start to go wrong because of their interference, they would only blame someone else.

Even innocent incompetence can wreak havoc. Central planning leads to "central" points of failure. A mis-allocation of money, an error in quota requirements, a mistake in regulatory restrictions can cause a chain reaction that negatively affects the huge swaths of the economy.

In the end, no matter how well you plan an economy, it will fail with central management because of the attraction that power would have on those who would abuse it. To me, argue all you want about central economic planning, about incentives, subsidies and credits or penalties, fees and taxes. It just doesn't make sense to restrict freedom to that degree and to create that type of temptation in order to create an economy that requires perfect planning to avoid potentially massive negative outcomes.


PS: For those that think that some combination of capitalism and socialism is the way to go, same argument applies. There will always be the debate of what should be free and what should be planned.  And in that situation, you're creating the temptation for people to come in and advocate for more and more to be controlled. Something fails in the free market: requires government oversight. Something fails in the controlled economy: requires MORE government oversight. I believe that is how we have found ourselves with the chimera of an economy we currently have.

Article Response #1: GDP != State of Economy

Article:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=71799

Response:
"The Republican alternatives in Congress, mostly just collections of tax cuts, would not have set unemployment on a drastically different course than it is on now." If the smarts of the Obama admin were so wildly inaccurate in their prediction of the impact (or lack thereof) of the stimulus package to unemployment, how can you (or anyone else) so quickly and easily dismiss tax cuts as being wholly ineffective? --- "Even though the recession may be technically over – the government just reported the economy had grown for the first time in nearly a year" Be careful how you interpret those results. Look at the data itself. GDP is the primary measure they're bragging about, part of which is government spending (source). That has certainly gone up over the last months, but does that really indicate a better economy? Also, consider cash for clunkers occurred during that period. Even though that's basically govt paying for half of your car, it all adds to GDP. It's not a sign of a strong economy, it's just a sign that someone is throwing a lot of money in the pot, that someone being govt. And where is the government getting that money to throw? It's printing it, it's borrowing it, from foreign countries (select 'Ownership of Federal Securities'] and from our posterity. But that isn't sustainable. There are many economists predicting that looking back at 2009-2010 the stimulus will cause the recession to slow, stop, then create a "fake" recovery, followed by another downhill period as the "bump" provided by the stimulus goes away. Now politicians are considering a second stimulus because they believe that if they can keep things afloat long enough, then the private sector will recover on its own by then. How? ... Somehow.

You all know I'm ... how shall I put it, "politically minded" at times.  Well, I'm also against signing up for web newsletters. Most seem to either ...

• constantly throw ads at me, 
• send enormous articles at me 4-5 times a day, 
• simply say nothing but teases of information, 
• require me to click on a link to get any real information, or
• all of the above.  

However, I'm a member of a web organization called DownsizeDC.org whose newsletter does none of these things. I hope you'll be interested in what they are proposing as I am. 

I'm asking you to look into this because I'd like your help in compelling Congress to pass two specific pieces of legislation created by DownsizeDC.org:

The Read the Bills Act [http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27]
The One Subject at a Time Act [http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/83]

These bills would do exactly what their names suggest . . .

The Read the Bills Act would require that every bill be posted online for 7 days, and more importantly, would require that every member of Congress read every word of every law (enforced by requiring them to sign affidavit) they want to impose on you, BEFORE they vote to enact it.

Congress is routinely ignorant of the laws they pass, but ignorance of the law is no excuse for us, and it shouldn't be allowed for Congress either.

Even when they do know the content of the bills before them, they pass unpopular laws by stuffing them as portion of a larger, more popular one. Would it surprise you to know that the Minimum Wage Increase in 2007 was put in as subsection of an Iraq war spending bill?  Or how about that the REAL ID Act, which requires a national ID card, was passed as a small amendment to the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief?"

The One Subject at a Time Act would prohibit Congress from passing unpopular laws by combining them with popular but unrelated proposals. Every law would have to be voted on as a stand alone measure, and pass or fail on its own merits.

They require no membership fee and though I have donated no money to them yet, I am considering doing so. Their newsletter is also a great source of short (most are shorter than this email), but compelling and informative nuggets. You can sign up for it for free, without a membership by going here: http://www.downsizedc.org/page/newsletter and entering your email address.

Should you chose, you can sign up for a free membership with DownsizeDC.org which will . . .

• Allow you to promote these bills by sending letters to Congress -- all it takes is a few mouse-clicks and keyboard strokes
• This can be done in one step and is much easier with Downsize DC than by visiting each Congressional website and posting separately
• Keep you posted on what Congress is doing through an excellent email newsletter, the Downsizer-Dispatch
• Enable you to pressure Congress on other issues
• Make your pressure on Congress more effective by combining it with the efforts of thousands of others

You may not agree with all the stands Downsize DC takes, but unlike a political party or candidate, you can choose which Downsize DC campaigns you want to support.

I hope you'll join me in promoting the Read the Bills Act and the One Subject at a Time Act.

If you do decide to join me in this effort please drop me a line and let me know. 

Thanks for considering this,

RR