Busting out the economy -since 1934

 

1934 Cartoon from Chicago Tribune

"What's past is prologue." -William Shakespeare

Why do I oppose the current Obama health care plan?

A few thoughts...

The "reforms" being pressed by the president and ruling party are very unpopular with the public... so much so that thousands of citizens who have never before been involved in political demonstrations are seeking out their congressmen to express their concerns, indignation, and anger. It's amazing to see the reaction of the public.

The democrats' plan is increasingly unpopular not because the plan is being widely misrepresented, but because people are increasingly realizing what the current proposals would bring. The plan is getting more public scrutiny than Congress and the president want, and the better people understand the plan the more they oppose it.

Public anger is increasing also because people who raise concerns or objections to the democrats' plan find they frequently are dismissed by elected officials and the media as misinformed freaks, lobbyists, or even racists. But the town hall videos I've seen recently show meetings attended mostly by intelligent, passionate, middle-aged and older citizens expressing their own concerns, not pawns operated by mustache-twirling lobbyists intent on putting down the poor.

Why are people so agitated about the "reforms"? Several big reasons:

• The democrats would like to provide health care coverage as a "right" to an additional 47 million individuals, and claim they will do so without increasing public debt. Does anyone believe this isn't a lie?
  
• Where are all the new doctors who will care for those 47 million individuals? Congress can't manufacture them.
  
• Many believe that under the proposed plan, their access to medical care and the quality of that care will decrease: millions more recipients will stretch thin the existing pool of medical providers.
  
• The so-called "public option" is hardly an "option". It would be the ONLY option permitted to people who don't already have coverage. They would be legally barred from buying private coverage.
  
• Who really believes that the government plan will not ultimately destroy the existing private providers, resulting in total government domination of health care? People increasingly view our federal government as insatiable in its appetite to nationalize one industry after another, and the medical industry is currently in the crosshairs.
  
• Does anyone really believe that the government can do a better job of providing health care than the private sector? In which countries has this been the case? Cuba? England? Canada?
  
• Many people do not believe it is just or fair to grant comprehensive medical benefits to illegal aliens -many of whom pay no taxes- and expect taxpaying citizens to pay the cost, especially when so many citizens are already struggling to provide for their own families.
  
• The American medical industry is the greatest in the world, despite its flaws. Who thinks that a government takeover really will improve it?
  
• Many people -myself included- deeply mistrust the federal government's ability to administer medical benefits fairly without violating the basic human rights of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. The danger is that government will have a strong financial motivation to make medical decisions not to benefit individuals, but according to some other criteria.
  
• And why have the president and Congress been pressing for such rapid passage of such a monumental bill? If it's so important to get it right, why did they press so hard to pass it before the August recess, even before many members had had a chance to read it?
  

These are a few of the big concerns I have about the democrats' plan for the federal government to take over the health care industry, and they are reasons why I oppose the current plan. I'm persuaded that there are some things government should do to improve the health care system, but a massive take-over, a government-run "public option" would badly damage our system of health care which is second to none in the world.

Congress treads upon a dangerous serpent

Column: 'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com

"...These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views - but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

-Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer

Speaker Pelosi, here are some facts that You seem not to want to acknowledge:

The American people don't trust You, and they don't trust the plan for nationalized health care that Congress is hellbent on ramming down their throats.

Increasingly, Americans are horrified by the federal government's insatiable hunger to dominate the health care industry and other private sector industries. We're appalled that our government has become so insatiable, so overreaching, and so reckless in piling unsustainable debt upon future generations. And now it seems to be shedding any pretense that its members are required to listen to their constituents and represent their concerns. Rather, we are lectured about the predefined goals that Congress "must reach", "despite the disruptions" of a majority of citizens who strongly oppose the plans.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and all members of Congress, should take heed. Their actions are causing cries of alarm to sound throughout the nation: the alarm of citizens who see that their government is increasingly out of control, increasingly deaf to their voices, increasingly menacing to the future prosperity and security of the United States. The rising voices have an edge of defiance and patriotic anger that only fools will attempt to dismiss as "manufactured" and "organized". Common cause has organized this uprising, and a domineering government has started the machine which is manufacturing the newly minted resistance.

Continue to tread on us, and we will strike back. We will sweep You from office, we will find new public servants who will share our ideals and represent our concerns. We will find a way to restore democracy and rid government of those bad apples who view public office solely as a path to power and profit.

Press on, Congress, show Yourselves... and discover what mettle still stiffens the spine of the American people.

To each according to his need -Karl Marx gets religion

To Each According to Need - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

"The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need." (Acts 4:32-35)

The Acts of the Apostles describe the Christ-like spirit of the first days of the Church. Acts 4:32-35 accounts for how the community provided for the material shortcomings of its members. How marvelous this scripture is to set side-by-side with the resentment of the tea partiers...

It's notable that the title, "To Each According to Need", while taken from Scripture, has also been used by others to justify coercive government programs which confiscate private property supposedly for the "common good".

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx

These programs view citizens not as virtuous and generous individuals ready to voluntarily assist others, but as greedy "haves" from whom revenue must be squeezed to support the "have-nots".


The author acknowledges,

"It would be mistaken to read the text's argument for possessions "in common" as in some way equivalent to our contemporary notions of political ideas such as socialism."

Very true. Yet the author does not seem to let this fact enter his thinking when he directs his contempt toward "a pathetic and mean-spirited outpouring of resentment" by thousands of citizens at the recent "Tea Parties". Their offense? Many attended to demonstrate their opposition to super-sized government programs that perpetuate poverty and dependence, depleting the resources of the many while failing to effectively meet the needs of the few they claim to benefit. How dare they oppose ever-increasing deficit spending for social programs that are based on the false and unchristian premise that private property should be managed not by its owners, but by the state, and must be forcibly redistributed by politicians! How mean-spirited to insist on one's right to act as responsible stewards of the fruits of one's own labor!

As government spending increases and our taxes increase, this right of private ownership of property is increasingly denied. And as government takes a larger and larger portion of our income, we gradually lose the ability to support families, and provide help to those causes and individuals that conscience and discretion show to be most in need of our help. Can government do this better than the individual? Should government be permitted to usurp this responsibility?

The early Christians willingly donated money to the Church, which used it to assist the poor according to prudent Christian principles. Why do some Catholics now argue that this responsibility to care for the poor should be fulfilled primarily by the state? Why should the biblical model of voluntary alms for the poor, administered by the Church according to right moral criteria, be overturned in favor of morally flawed, wasteful government programs that depend on coercive taxation instead of willing generosity?

U.S. bishops push comprehensive healthcare plan for illegal aliens

US bishops back comprehensive health coverage for illegal immigrants - Catholic World News

The American Catholic bishops have apparently thrown their support behind a proposal to offer comprehensive health care to illegal immigrants.

In a May 20 letter to members of the US House of Representatives, Bishop William Murphy-- writing in his capacity as chairman of the Domestic Justice and Human Development committee for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)-- argues that the federal government should ensure 'comprehensive and affordable health care for every person living in the United States.' Bishop Murphy writes that individuals' access to comprehensive coverage should not depend on 'where they live or where they come from.' -CWNews.com

How does Bishop Murphy and the bishops at the USCCB suggest that the nation pay the staggering cost of such a plan? Predictably no answer is provided, because for statists the answer to funding every new program is taken for granted and is always the same: "the government". If You press for a more specific answer, it becomes, make "the rich" pay for it. And who are the rich? Well, anyone who has any money left after taxes are deducted.

Why does this bloated bureaucracy of bishops -does the USCCB itself pay any taxes?- why does this episcopal committee of little (if any) authority lobby Congress to support yet another gigantic federal program at a time when the entire nation is sinking under the weight of an unsupportable debt? Do they wish to destroy us, or have they simply given themselves totally to the gospel of socialism?

The bishops hail this socialist dream of universal healthcare as if it were the Great Commission handed down by Jesus... as if Jesus Himself announced that individuals should be compelled by Caesar beyond the limits of their generosity... as if He wanted on earth the State -not the Church- to be the first and best help of the poor, and to accomplish by policy, taxation, and bureaucracy what the Church has failed to do through leadership, generosity, and resourcefulness.

But Jesus didn't teach such things, and I'm quite sure that lots of Catholics won't agree that the bishops' proposal is the only way -or even a good way- to help the poor and advance the reign of Christ. Thoughtful Catholics realize that the poor are better served in a society that is prosperous and productive, rather than in one crushed by grinding debt and paralyzed by suffocating taxation. And we recall that while there are moral absolutes that must always be respected, political solutions to real problems are matters of opinion and debate.

Faithful Catholics desire their bishops to preach unambiguously the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to apply it with wisdom to the questions and circumstances of modern life.

What we don't want is for our bishops to: be used as pawns by those seeking to manipulate public opinion; promote reckless and economically disastrous government programs; confuse the Gospel of Christ with the gospel of socialism.

If bishops promote a political agenda that many Catholics consider doubtful, harmful, or even opposed to authentic Christian principles, we believers may begin to reconsider whether these bishops deserve our continued financial support or our energetic and vocal opposition.

Obama seeks expanded power to seize firms

U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms - Washington Post

Why did the Washington Post title this article, "U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms"? The U.S. isn't seeking this, Obama and his administration are seeking it.

President Obama is rapidly attempting to bring the entire economy under the control of the executive branch, under his authority. He appears to be willing to break the back of the economy, so that he can rebuild a new economy patterned after his ideals.

If we permit this to happen, what are some of the headlines that soon may follow?

"President demands expanded powers to avoid economic meltdown"
"President wins power to seize any 'unhealthy' company"
"President insists capitalism needs 'rescue'"
"Obama to nationalize all private banks and thrifts"
"FDIC reimbursements frozen pending 'restructuring'"
"IRA and 401k funds frozen pending 'restructuring'"
"President proposes 'housing relief' tax on mortgage holders not in default"
"Federal Reserve empowered to review and adjust employee compensation plans"

What else?

Misguided activists vent anger at AIG employees

Angry activists on protest tour over AIG bonuses -AFP

Activists from the "Connecticut Working Families Party" demonstrating at the homes of AIG employees display a misguided anger.

AIG is not the source of the problem. Showing up in buses at the family homes of AIG employees suggests a radical class warfare mentality. I hope that this isn't what CWFP intends, but this is the impression many people will form.

Angry protests at employees' homes distract from the real problems, which have more to do with years of the federal government's wrongheaded manipulation of mortgage lending, and now its massive (damage control) "rescue" programs, rather than the compensation plans of individual companies.

Blame for the current situation lies primarily in the federal government. Protesters who want to show their displeasure should board buses for Washington, D.C., not Fairfield, Connecticut.

Bonus outrage: Is the federal government deliberately inciting class hatred?

AIG bonus outrage has employees living in fear - Associated Press

Why are AIG employees receiving bonuses? For the same reason many other individuals have received bonuses: they earned them under the compensation plans of their employer.

So why is there such outrage toward AIG employees that some now fear for their families' safety? Is it because these individuals are known to have been dishonest, or done any harm to their communities, their country, or the economy? No. It's because of anger that our tax money has been used to bail out a company that is so important, we are told, that it simply CAN'T BE ALLOWED to collapse. And now that numerous billions of our dollars have been handed over to AIG, the company has directed a large percentage to foreign recipients, as well as a relatively tiny portion (about 0.1%) into employee bonuses.

Oh, there is much cause for outrage here. It's outrageous and unfair that public money is being used to prop up certain struggling corporations suffering the consequences of their own decisions, while others less well connected are left to solve their problems on their own. But those who direct their anger toward AIG employees have been taken been fooled into overlooking the real offenders.

Who pushed the plan to use huge amounts of public money to bail out AIG and other companies? Congress and the president. Who specifically added a provision to the stimulus package to allow AIG to pay out bonuses with bailout money? Senator Chris Dodd (who initially denied adding it but later admitted it). Three Republicans and almost every Democrat voted for the stimulus package which included this bonus provision. They rushed it through Congress over the loud objections of the minority party. The president signed it. Now that there is a public outcry, the president and his cohort are, oh, so shocked -shocked and angry!- that AIG has paid out bonuses. But these are the guys who legislated the funds and authorized the bonuses, so their outrage is political posturing as false as a three dollar bill. These are the real offenders, and these are the ones who deserve our anger and opposition: not AIG employees.

President Obama and prominent members of Congress have been exploiting the public anger to promote hostility toward the wealthy in general and to deflect anger from themselves. Their motives are obvious. In a socialist government those in power are satisfied with nothing less than total control over the economy. Therefore, successful private producers are adversaries of the state. The wealthy must be brought down, their assets confiscated at once or little by little. To justify this, the economically successful must be shown to be greedy, dishonest parasites standing in the way of equal opportunity and economic justice. Their companies must be regulated, their incomes capped, their bonuses restricted, their assets taxed punitively. They must be stigmatized. "Activists" must appear in the news, denouncing the "greedy" rich and intimidating them in their neighborhoods. And Congress and the president "must act now" to pass more and more draconian measures to "rescue" the economy from the clutches of such greedy capitalists.

This sort of revolution has taken place at many times in many places. But it's not American, and it's not what our ancestors in this country fought for. We shouldn't permit it to take place here.

We need to halt the reckless course our government is following. Congress and President Obama need to be rebuked loudly by the American public: NO to the slavery of crushing debt! NO to federal "rescues" of failing companies, NO to the use of public money to prop up private investments and risky mortgages! NO to the devaluation of our currency by excessive printing of new money.

And we need to remember that our neighbors who go to work and produce things, who earn incomes and pay their bills, and sometimes even earn bonuses... these neighbors are NOT our enemies. Americans now more than ever need to be united in order to stand up to a government that ominously seems intoxicated with the desire to nationalize and socialize the economy, and promotes a hostile class mentality to achieve its goals.

Outraged with AIG bonuses? OK, but Congress and the President approved them

Congressman McCotter (R-MI) Slams those Protecting AIG Bonuses in Voting for Stimulus Bill



I'm upset that AIG accepted federal funds and then paid bonuses. But that's not nearly as scandalous as the fact that Congress not only gave them the funds to begin with, but specifically provided a loophole to allow the bonuses to be paid.

Company of the Living Dead

Critics blast AIG as flap escalates over bonuses - USATODAY.com
AIG isn't alone, but it's a good symbol for the financial house of cards which is collapsing in ruins around us. Surely the government, banks, investors, and insurers were not powerless to see that a collapse was likely if not inevitable.

Yet government policy encouraged and rewarded an unsustainable orgy of risky lending and unrealistic valuation of debt.

Now AIG has already collapsed, although the mountain of freshly printed cash shoveled into the abyss is supposed to fool us into thinking AIG has been "rescued". The entity moves, walks, talks, and spends as though the orgy were still in full swing, but the soul has already left the body. The federal government, with its 79.9% ownership of this corporate corpse, is the animating principle, the Doctor Frankenstein behind the pathetic creature. But the creature proves to be a hideous embarrassment, refusing to play politely its assigned role as subservient ward of the state.

Frankenstein's monster ran amok, but at least Frankenstein created only one. Governments are rarely satisfied to produce only one hideous, overreaching disaster. As the "rescue" of AIG will prove to be somewhat less successful than was hoped, the meddlers surely will not repent of their dreams, but will redouble their efforts to realize them, meddling more and more with whatever remains of the economy. They'll create more and bigger monsters, uglier and more destructive: impotent, and doomed to wander the economy as insatiable zombies, tethered to their capricious and increasingly useless rulers, leaving a pestilence of poverty and servitude behind them.

Congress just can't spend it fast enough

Pelosi's Auto-Rescue Plan Sets Up Clash With Bush -Bloomberg.com Politics

Congress: Leave GM alone. Leave the insurance companies alone. Leave the investment firms alone.

Stop squandering public money on Your favorite businesses.

Socialists wreck nations... are You ready?

Shame, Cubed by Bill Whittle on National Review Online

Obama has clearly spelled out what he believes. He just doesn't talk about it on the campaign trail.

Just a week before the election, some of the Obama's paper trail is starting to get attention. But is it too late to matter?

C-SPAN2 shows democrats preventing regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

FoxNews names names in subprime mortgage scandal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs

See how these individuals were involved:

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MS)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Treasury Secretary John Snow
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan

Quasi-socialist compares domestic socialist to foreign socialists

McCain compares Obama to European socialists - Yahoo! News
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders in Europe on Saturday, saying his rival wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to give money to the poor."

This is very true, and one of the points that Mr. McCain needs to hammer energetically until the election, if he is to have a chance of winning. But it's a tough case for him to make, because his own policies are badly polluted with plans to "spread the wealth".

For example: his mortgage buy-out plan, and his health-care plan.

Obama caught on video: he intends to redistribute YOUR earnings

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT - New York Post



In response to a plumber who asked whether Barack Obama's policies would raise his taxes, Obama replied they would.

He continued, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too... My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The cost of socialist policies

World finance chiefs heading for Washington for crunch talks

For years the federal carrot and stick program -mortgage lending guarantees coupled with the class-baiting dogma that minority home ownership was "disproportionately low"- pressured lenders to make loans that they otherwise would not have risked making.

Once this engine of capital redistribution was in place, it was ripe for exploitation.
Lenders milked it for quick profits. High-risk borrowers milked it for more expensive homes than they really could afford. Congressmen milked it for votes, campaign contributions, liberal credentials, and sometimes favors of an even less savory sort.

Numerous lenders permitted the irresponsible federal policy and opportunity for quick profits to override good judgment. They made millions of high risk loans to borrowers, and neither lenders nor borrowers seemed really to care whether the loans could or would be repaid.

Lenders weren't overly concerned about this, since federal loan guarantees meant that ultimately the lenders weren't gambling with their own money. The government saw to it that these these loans were purchased from the lenders, their true risk camouflaged, and the resulting toxic investments funneled back into the economic food chain. A time bomb was formed and its fuse lit by a combination of bad government policy, market forces, greed, recklessness, and even fraud on the part of government officials, lenders, and borrowers. The default rates on these loans was enormous, yet the engine roared ahead unchecked.

The socialist dogma used to justify such widespread, high-risk lending was that if some individuals can't afford to buy homes, then it is government's job to force others to subsidize the cost of providing them. Such heavy-handed meddling in the lending market meant that many bad borrowers would receive loans, and this diversion of capital meant that many good potential borrowers were denied loans, while others simply paid more for the loans they obtained.

Now the time bomb has exploded. Banks are collapsing, people are losing homes, and the radius of destruction expands. Predictably, congressmen blame their opposing parties. But let's not waste time blaming each other, they say: It's time to fix the problem! Yes, the federal government, rarely content to leave bad enough alone, has stepped in with another scheme: Let's reward the guilty and punish the innocent with yet another gigantic redistribution of capital, controlled by our new demigod, the Trillion Dollar Czar.

The show's far from over. John McCain, supposedly the more conservative of our two presidential candidates, now has suggested that the federal government should go further to "stabilize the housing market", buying up homeowners' failing mortgages and replacing them with new "manageable" loans, as decreed by some magical process to be administered by bloated bureaucrats inhabiting some new bloated bureaucracy. Undoubtedly these will include many of the same meddlers (and their disciples) who brought about this current crisis in the first place.

Yet history shows that government schemes to control or "stabilize" market prices of any commodity -including homes- almost always cause far more harm than good, and prove to be giant failures and destroyers of wealth due to their unintended negative consequences. (For an eye-opening explanation, see the classic "Economics in One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt.)

This plan, if adopted, will be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current disaster which is already unfolding.