Tom Woods provides us with a fabulous explanation of how money came about and why its origins are so important. I think Tom is an excellent speaker as far as economists go. He is entertaining and loaded with excellent information.  The talk is geared for those who are new to Austrian economics.

This is another one of those videos that should be required viewing for all Americans.

Do yourself and the country a favor, learn the real meaning and history of money and why those who control its issuance in today’s society have caused our financial chaos.

Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money

Share this post :

Robert P. Murphy of the Mises Institute delivers a fantastic audio lecture on anarchy:
http://mises.org/media/1334
Presented to Dr. Brad Birzer’s seminar on "American Order and Disorder," Hillsdale College, 02-09-2005.

Bookmark the thread and listen to it while you have some down time at work.
Murphy describes his brand as "free market anarchism".

Share this post :

When people think of Christmas, economic theory rarely comes to mind. But it should be no surprise that Christmas, as always, will come with economic phenomena, since shoppers are estimated (conservatively) to spend $65 billion this holiday season.

One man who considers the economics of Christmas in great detail is Professor Joel Waldfogel of The Wharton School. Waldfogel asserts that much of Christmas giving results in a deadweight loss, an economic term defined by Investopedia as

The costs to society created by an inefficiency in the market. Mainly used in economics, the term “deadweight loss” can be applied to any deficiency due to an inefficient allocation of resources.

An example of deadweight loss is the economic impact of sales taxes. Assume a car is being sold. Tom is selling his car to Jerry. They have agreed upon $10,000 as the price of the car. Without sales taxes, Tom receives $10,000 (which he clearly values more than the car) and Jerry receives the car (which he obviously values more than his $10,000). Both Tom and Jerry are now better off because of this transaction. Now, let us introduce a 10% sales tax and assume that Tom and Jerry split the cost of the tax – resulting in a $500 expense for each of them. Jerry now receives the car, but at a total cost of $10,500; and the amount (net of taxes) Tom receives is only $9,500. Where does the $1,000 go? Surely some of this tax revenue is used for services that Tom and Jerry will benefit from (roads, police protection, etc.), but much of it will be wasted in transaction costs and acts of economic sodomy (i.e. stimulus projects). Whatever portion of the $1,000 that is wasted is known as a deadweight loss. It is, typically, third parties (such as government) that create deadweight loss. Though this is a very simple example, the illustrated principles apply to the most complex transactions.

According to Professor Waldfogel, however, Government is joined in its crime by over-anxious (albeit well-intentioned) gift-givers. Let us now assume that Tom and Jerry, because of the friendly relationship they formed over the sale of Tom’s car, both feel obligated – but not inspired – to give each other a Christmas gift. Tom and Jerry (separately) each budget $75 to spend on each other. If they were each to spend their own $75 on themselves, they would receive at least $75 in value for their spending. But, knowing little about each other, the gifts bought for $75 will have only $60 in value to their recipients. This missing $30 is a deadweight loss. Granted, unlike the deadweight loss created by a sales tax, the loss created by Christmas will at least go to the shareholders of the gift-producing corporations. So Christmas is not nearly as guilty of crimes against efficiency as Government. Nevertheless, Tom and Jerry have still suffered a 20% deadweight loss as a result of Christmas giving. The 20% figure is based on Waldfogel’s research wherein he asked participants to value things they bought themselves and things given to them by others – the difference was approximately 20%.

What does Professor Waldfogel suggest? Cash, gift cards, and charitable giving on behalf of your gift recipients are all excellent alternatives to arbitrary and inefficient gifts. Of course, gifts usually come with a high sentimental value and there is certainly nothing harmful about gift-giving in general. But, hopefully, Waldfogel’s research will encourage all of us to give the gift of efficiency along with those obnoxious sweaters this holiday season.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Nol, c’est mauvais, d’un point de vue conomique
• The Deadweight Loss of Economic Theory and the True Meaning of Christmas
• Deadweight loss of Christmas

I’m probably going to exaggerate with a title like that, but I have a good feeling you’re going to nod your head in tune with what I’m going to say anyway. So, there are these “petrol bunks” or “gas stations” all around the place right? Back in the days, about 5 or more years ago, the major players were HP (Hindustan Petroleum) and Indian Oil – at least down here at Bangalore. If you’re lucky you’ll come across IBP. These are petrol (and diesel) vendors who more or less offer fuel at the same rates throughout the country.

But being mundane Indian establishments some of these stations resort to cheating. Put aside adulterated fuel for a second (the profit margins by cheating this way is distributed over the entire fuel supply, I suppose). At times, lady luck loves you so much that something like the following happens to you (especially you): The guy who fuels your tank pretends like he’s filling in what you asked for but via some hidden trick – because he’s managed to rig the fuel-dispensing machine – nothing gets into your tank but the meter runs and asks you to pay the amount. This has happened to me (two-wheeler: minor loss) at least twice over the past two months and at least once with my dad (four-wheeler: major loss).

Enteur international fuel vendor: Shell.

It’s a good thing I haven’t spotted any Reliance vendors around, ’cause you’re bound to be cheated in *some* way. Hey, that’s Reliance for you.

The Shell fuelling station I went to (near Lalbagh) is a. laid out pretty well (made good use of the real estate), b. has lesser annoying colours and advertising, c. the fuel-filler guy greets you before anything, d. the fuel-duct is transparent immediately before the handle, so you can clearly see if the fuel is in motion or not and best of all e. free air.

I for one have decided to visit Shell as much as possible for my refuelling needs. We need more international players in other businesses too just so that those Indian vendors who learn to care just as much as some of the international vendors do might have greater chances to survive compared to those who’re never going to learn.

Reminds me of “Campus Restaurant” at IITK. The only restaurant within the campus which royally sucked solely because it had no competition.

It’s not like there international players aren’t welcome in India, it’s just that they’re not playing at a level where someone like me can take part in (as a consumer). Indians are known for their hospitality – especially to complete strangers and more so if the stranger is more white.

Thanks to Graham Dawson for this refreshing article on climate change policy.  Privatizing climate policy would be just, and it would work. 

“Climate-change policy ought to be privatized. All government policy instruments, including taxes, subsidies, regulation and emissions trading to mitigate climate change ought to be abolished. Instead, property rights to a climate unchanged by human activity should be protected by tort litigation on the basis that strict liability is appropriate.”

Today is Christmas Eve and all through the Government all we’re hearing about is the Health Care Bill. That wonderful glistening pile of doggie mess that is now mandating we get health insurance or face federal penalties.

And you know, I hate to be on the same side as the crazy teabaggers, but what the heck? What in the world is reformed about mandating paying the premiums of an already corrupt system? How about going after the corruption?

I recently have been going through a nightmare with my car insurance here in New Jersey. As we all know, insurance is required by law, so everyone must have it to drive. The insurance companies, knowing this, pretty much hijack all sensible prices and raise the rates through the roof. And switching companies? Another nightmare. I recently tried to switch from my insurance agent to another agent with the same policy only to be told my the insurance company that it cannot be done. !!!!!!! What? It’s like going into Target and being told you have to go back to Walmart to check out with your items.

Why can they get away with this? Because it’s MANDATORY. Even if you choose another company, which I am well on my way to doing now, it’s still a mandatory item and they push that point hard. They are unregulated and come up with arbitrary costs, rules, etc.

Health insurance as mandatory with no public option is a nightmare that I didn’t think we’d see under this President. I had high hopes for his reform attitude. But thus far he’s doing what all Democrats do in office. He’s turned into Captain Caveman.. giving in to every weird whim of the congressional Republicans who aren’t going to vote for anything he does anyway.

Well, I’m off to work, the land of my own corruption nightmare. And on this Christmas Eve, here’s hoping that Jesus gives all of us a break from crazy corruption by sweeping in new ideas and attitudes in the New Year.

Merry Christmas!

From Yasha Levine at truthdig:

Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.

And she’s not the only one who has been padding her bank account with taxpayer money.

Original DVD cover

Bachmann, of Minnesota, has spent much of this year agitating against health care reform, whipping up the so-called tea-baggers with stories of death panels and rationed health care. She has called for a revolution against what she sees as Barack Obama’s attempted socialist takeover of America, saying presidential policy is “reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom.”

But data compiled from federal records by Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog that tracks the recipients of agricultural subsidies in the United States, shows that Bachmann has an inner Marxist that is perfectly at ease with profiting from taxpayer largesse. According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006.

…snip…

However, Bachmann doesn’t think other Americans should benefit from such protection and assistance. She voted against every foreclosure relief bill aimed at helping average homeowners (despite the fact that her district had the highest foreclosure rate in Minnesota), saying that bailing out homeowners would be “rewarding the irresponsible while punishing those who have been playing by the rules.” That’s right, the subsidy queen wants the rest of us to be responsible.

Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms indicate that her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000. They also show that she has been earning income from the farm business, and that the income grew in just a few years from $2,000 to as much as $50,000 for 2008.

…snip…

But Bachmann isn’t the only welfare recipient on Capitol Hill. As it turns out, there is a filthy-rich class of absentee farmers—both in and out of Congress—who demand free-market rules by day and collect their government welfare checks in the mail at night, payments that subsidize businesses that otherwise would fail.

…snip…

Chuck Grassley, the longtime Republican senator from Iowa who warns his constituents of Obama’s “trend toward socialism,” has seen his family collect $1 million in federal handouts over an 11-year period, with Grassley’s son receiving $699,248 and the senator himself pocketing $238,974. Even Grassley’s grandson is learning to ride through life on training wheels, snagging $5,964 in 2005 and $2,363 in 2006. In the Grassley family they learn early how to enjoy other people’s money.

Sen. Grassley railed against government intervention in the health care market, telling The Washington Times, “Whenever the government does more … that’s a movement toward socialism.” As the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he ought to know, especially because the government has done more for him and his kin than for Americans struggling with high medical bills and mortgages.

…snip…

Then there’s Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose family has been on the government take for at least the past 11 years, pocketing some $500,000. The senator recently held a “prayercast” with Michele Bachmann to beseech God to kill health care reform as soon as possible because it would bring an evil socialist spirit into America. Like Bachmann, Brownback has a fierce belief in God, the free market and a two-year limit on all welfare benefits—unless it’s welfare to rich Republicans who don’t need it.

Not surprisingly, Blue Dog Democrats are on board with this welfare-for-the-rich thing. Max Baucus, the fiscally conservative Democratic senator from Montana who did his best to sabotage the health care reform process before it ever began, collected $250,000 in taxpayer subsidies to his family’s farm while fighting to keep Americans at the mercy of free-market health insurance. Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, another Democrat, also helped hold the line against so-called socialized medicine for Americans who need assistance, even though her family farm business follows the socialized subsidy playbook to a T. The Lincolns pocketed $715,000 in farm subsidies over a 10-year period, and the senator even admitted to using $10,000 of it as petty cash in 2007. Democratic Rep. Stephanie Sandlin of South Dakota stayed true to her conservative free-market roots by voting against the public option. Meanwhile, her daddy, Lars Herseth, a former South Dakota legislator, collected a welfare jackpot of $844,725 paid out between 1995 and 2006.

…snip…

Farm subsidies have become so corrupt that payments sometimes go to dead people for years. Federal farm subsidies, which were originally meant to help struggling farmers survive, are now little more than taxpayer robbery, taking taxpayer wealth from working Americans and sending it to the have-mores. According to 11 years’ worth of Environmental Working Group data that tracks $200 billion in subsidies, the wealthiest 10 percent of “farmers” have collected 75 percent of the money. That’s exactly the kind of socialism that Rep. Bachmann and her elite ilk like.

In his December 10, 2009 Fact and Comment column, In-Credit-Able, in Forbes Magazine, Steve Forbes clearly communicated several points worth capturing.  Here’s on on the mortgage crisis:

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae ( FNM – news – people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE – news – people), with their implicit government guarantees, were able to totally dominate the mortgage market. They could borrow cheaply and leverage up on a scale no private company could. When they went bingeing on subprime mortgages, they ended up twisting and then destroying the housing market. The private sector was quite capable of generating players that could have performed Fannie’s and Freddie’s roles. And because they wouldn’t have had Uncle Sam’s moral-hazard safety net, they would have been infinitely more cautious, even with the Fed creating floods of liquidity and the credit rating agencies forgetting their raison d’être. Yet Congress is determined to keep these beasts alive and under government sway. Washington is also taking over the student loan market.

This is not a well understood point.  Having the implicit guarantee of the government short-circuited the prudence that would take place in a free market.  All the bright bulbs that condemn free markets for causing the crisis, don’t seem very bright to me because they not only miss the true cause of the crisis, but they blame the very thing that could have prevented it.  Removing prudence from a free market through a government action will always end badly.

Here’s some clear thinking from Steve on health care:

The prospective government de facto takeover of health care will extend Washington’s reach into the credit markets. Health insurers will be reduced to federal vassals by being forced to offer policies at prices and terms dictated by Washington. As a reward they will have first call on the credit markets, with the same sort of implicit guarantees that once so benefited Fannie and Freddie.

It’s easy to forget, businesses like insurance companies are in business to make a profit for their shareholders.  If they don’t make a profit, there’s nothing forcing them to stay in business.

Here are some interesting stories sent to me by ECM.

CNN: Report finds imprudent spending at USPS.

Excerpt:

The U.S. Postal Service spent more than $792,000 “without justification” on meals and events in one five-month period even as it reported losing $3.8 billion this year, the agency’s inspector general says in a report.

Employees spent $792,022 on meals and external events “without justification for food purchases, purchased alcohol without officer approval and exceeded the dollar limit for meals,” the report says.

Among the purchases were crab cakes, beef Wellington and scallops at an installation ceremony for one of several postmasters in the United States, the report says.

[...]The Postal Service reported a $3.8 billion net loss for the 2009 fiscal year…

University of Michigan links government bailouts to corruption.

Excerpt:

U.S. banks that spent more money on lobbying were more likely to get government bailout money, according to a study released on Monday. Banks whose executives served on Federal Reserve boards were more likely to receive government bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the study from Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura, professors at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. Banks with headquarters in the district of a U.S. House of Representatives member who serves on a committee or subcommittee relating to TARP also received more funds. Political influence was most helpful for poorly performing banks, the study found. “Political connections play an important role in a firm’s access to capital,” Sosyura, a University of Michigan assistant professor of finance, said in a statement. Banks with an executive who sat on the board of a Federal Reserve Bank were 31 percent more likely to get bailouts through TARP’s Capital Purchase Program, the study showed. Banks with ties to a finance committee member were 26 percent more likely to get capital purchase program funds.

South Carolina Attorney General will investigate Ben Nelson’s Obamacare bribe.

Excerpt:

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said Tuesday that he intends to organize his counterparts in different states to investigate dealmaking that sealed a final compromise on federal health care legislation.

McMaster said the language of the Nelson provision appears to give the State of Nebraska a permanent exemption from paying the Medicaid expenses all other states in the nation will be required to pay.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state—all Republicans—are jointly taking a look at the deal they’ve dubbed the ‘Nebraska compromise.’

The ‘Nebraska compromise,’ which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution—as well as other provisions of federal law.’

White House pressuring pro-life Democrat to pass health care.

Excerpt:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the “compromise” abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

CBO double-counted Medicare savings in estimate provided prior to Senate vote.

Excerpt:

The key point is that the savings to the HI (Medicare Hospital Insurance) trust fund under the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs.

To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.

One nice things about capitalism and small government is that it minimizes corruption and waste. (Companies trying to make a profit don’t waste, and they don’t try to influence government if government stays out of the free market). But some people like big government because they think that they should have their lives subsidized by their neighbors. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for corruption and waste.

Ah, the great health care debate. Will it ever end? Somehow I doubt it, for regardless of whether or not Obama’s quest for universal health care in the United States becomes a reality, I think it is safe to say there will always be a schism on this issue amongst the American population.

According to the latest polling results from Rasmussen Reports, 41% of Americans are in favor of the latest installment of the health care bill while 55% are opposed. In another national poll done by Quinnipac University the results are quite similar, with 53% of Americans polled disapproving of the proposed health care bill in the Senate and 56% of Americans disapproving with Obama’s handling of the health care issue in general. I find these statistics somewhat curious though, since the House has already passed its version of the health care bill and things are looking fairly positive for the Senate bill at this point, considering it just passed by a 60-40 party line vote to overcome the Republican filibuster. I say this is curious because both the House and the Senate are supposed to be comprised of politicians who represent their respective constituents. But how can that be? It seems to me if our representatives were truly voting in line with their constituents, we’d be seeing different results in the House and the Senate, no? Then again, I suppose I’m not considering the fact that this has nothing to do with what the American public’s wants or desires are, and it has everything to do with Republican vs. Democrat and, of course, money. Silly me.

Wait a minute… Health care reform, all about money and politics? Shouldn’t health care reform be about, you know, health care? Surely I must be mistaken. I truly wish I were.

“By standing up to the special interests who prevented reform for decades and who are furiously lobbying against it now, the Senate has moved us closer to reform that makes a tremendous difference for families, for seniors, for businesses, and for the country as a whole,” Obama proclaimed to White House reporters after the vote.

Yes, those pesky lobbyists have really been taken to school by the powers that be, or so the President would have us believe. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the American Medical Association, AARP, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America are among the top 6 lobbying spenders–and these are just to name a few, and to mention nothing of the non-medical industry lobbyists and insurance companies who have been lobbying on health care reform this year. The Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America alone have lobbied on over 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2005, spending at least $900 million and employing nearly half of all health care lobbyists within that time frame to preserve their interests. CNN’s Jim Acosta reports that the health care industry, this year alone, has spent at least $263 million lobbying Congress, with nearly 6 lobbyists for every one member of Congress, to manipulate health care reform in their favor. As well, some of the most influential health care lobbyists, the American Medical Association and AARP, have both publicly announced their support for Obama’s health care reform, a completely contrary reality to Obama’s own assertion that health care reform is being passed despite the health care lobby.

Call me crazy, but somehow I don’t think these people are spending these hundreds of millions of dollars, and employing multiple thousands of lobbyists only to get stonewalled by Washington’s unwavering stoicism. On the contrary, the Chicago Tribune’s Andrew Zajac reports that David Nexon, a former adviser to Senator Ted Kennedy turned senior executive vice president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, managed to get the Senate’s health care bill’s tax on medical devices cut in half by the time the bill was unveiled in mid-November. So much for sticking it to the lobbyists, eh Mr. President?

Not to worry, Obama’s universal health care is going to help stimulate a faltering economy, counter the growing cost of health care to all Americans, and ensure that even the most impoverished citizens have access to the health care they need, right?

Not so fast, Mr. President. I’m sure it may surprise many people to learn that the health care industry is already, and has been for some time, the most heavily government-regulated industry in the United States, as is apparent from a 2004 study by the Cato Institute. Unfortunately, examining the connection between government regulation and health care costs is something of a shrouded secret, as there have been very little in-depth looks into such analysis in the past. Perhaps with the volatility of this new health care debate sweeping the nation more attention will be given to the subject, but for now we have very little to go off of aside from the Cato Institute’s admittedly preliminary report. Nevertheless, Christopher J. Cronover does end up giving validity to a certain economic study by Mr. Milton Friedman, a renowned American economist of the 20th century and recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, in his study Input and Output in Medical Care. In this study, Friedman essentially examines an economic theory, the theory of bureaucratic displacement, proposed by a Dr. Max Gammon which says that, in a bureaucratic system, increase in expenditure will be matched by fall in production–in other words, the more government regulation there is, the less efficient the medical care will be. In light of all of this, the most obvious question to me is then, why would we want any more government regulation in the health care industry than we already have? In fact, wouldn’t lessening the government regulation of health care be the more logical path to reform? This question resonates even louder in my mind as I learn of all of the new and expanding bureaucracies both the Senate and House bills will be imposing on the health care industry for regulatory purposes; it looks like we’ll see at least 50 new bureaucracies regardless of which bill takes precedent. Government regulation doesn’t just lead to inefficient output and operation however, it also facilitates a little something called coercion.

What is coercion? Dictionary.com defines coercion as follows: the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. So, in other words, coercion seems to be the very antithesis of liberty–one of the fundamental principles that this nation was founded upon. Yet, coercion is one of the very few things our government really seems to excel at, and this fact is reiterated in both the House and Senate health care legislation. There are many forms of coercion throughout the bills which will certainly affect the economy at large, as well as the American consumer, but for the purposes of this discussion I’d like to focus on one form of coercion in particular. In both bills, from the House and the Senate, it is mandated that all Americans have to purchase health insurance. If, for whatever reason, someone does not comply with this mandate, they will be subject to penalties in the form of additional income taxes–the House bill imposes a fine of up to 2.5% of a person’s income while the Senate bill imposes a fine which begins at $95 and rises to $750 as years go on. Since these fines are now basically taxes on income, they are then handled by our best friend the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS then has the power, under the Tax Code (Section 7203 and 7201), to prosecute, fine and even imprison, anyone who does not comply with these new taxes should they choose not to conform to the new mandated health care.

Now, if you’re anything like me, you’re probably wondering how in the world the government can force anyone to purchase anything, health care or otherwise. Surely this type of behavior is completely unconstitutional, right? Well, don’t try raising this question to any of our upstanding representatives, and certainly not the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. On October 22, at a press conference regarding the health care legislation, CNSNews.com posed this very question to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

The Speaker then responded by simply shaking her head, ignoring the question and taking a question from another reporter, says CNSNews.com. Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi’s press secretary, then apparently told CNSNews.com the following:

Nadeam Elshami: “You can put this on the record, that is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Interesting. Bear in mind that the Speaker of the House, as a member of Congress, is required by law to take the Oath or Affirmation of Office as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

For someone who has pledged such an allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, Nancy Pelosi sure doesn’t seem to take it very seriously. Setting aside the fact that her response to an arguably valid question was quite unprofessional and rather rude, it seems to me that she has blatantly disregarded the very oath she is bound to. The Constitution does not grant Congress any such power, plain and simple. Pelosi’s camp likes to cite Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of the Constitution as justification for being able to mandate health care, which reads:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes;

Now, it’s important to note that the interpretation of this clause is a subject of much political controversy, both historically and even now, as it is from a specific interpretation of this clause alone that Congress has attained much of its legislative and regulatory power over the years. The Heritage Foundation takes an in-depth look into the history and unconstitutional application of this clause as it relates to health care reform, and even refers to the Congressional Research Service which states:

Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.

As well, the Congressional Budget Office even admits how unprecedented such a mandate would be:

A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.

Regardless of all of this, Speaker Pelosi is content to question the seriousness of a question on the constitutionality of such a mandate, and apparently doesn’t even seem to understand the very Constitution which she swore to support and defend in the first place, let alone the intention of the Framers who drafted it. In addition to all of this talk about mandating Americans to purchase health insurance, I find it rather amusing to recall the words of Obama about the same issue during the democratic presidential debates:

CNN: What is the most important policy difference between you and your opponent [Senator Hillary Clinton]?

Obama: Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it, otherwise there will be a lot of people who don’t get it. I don’t see those folks, and I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance, and it’s not affordable, then there’s going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don’t have health care fines, or have to take it out of their pay checks–and that I don’t think is helping those without health insurance; that is a genuine difference.

You don’t have to take my word for it, I’m not making this stuff up. Watch the video. I’ll give our President credit where credit is due, he is an excellent politician (read: liar).

Ok, so health care reform has it’s problems, nothing is perfect after all, but it’s every American’s natural right to have affordable health care, right? Not in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that only the rich should have access to health care and that the poor should just be disregarded and left to suffer and die as a result of their poverty. On the contrary, what I am saying is that every human being has the natural right to seek out, value and exchange health care as they see fit so long as in doing so they do not infringe on the rights, or liberties of others. As well, I believe that in a free-market, absent of government regulation, mandates, coercion and inefficiency health care would become much more affordable and accommodating to both rich and poor. Health care is a good which comes from the efforts or labors of other individuals, and as such it is a property, a commodity of sorts for exchange. Similarly, we do not have rights to the goods which others produce, we do however have the right to seek out exchange for the goods that others produce, should they be willing to exchange those goods for what we have to offer. As such, our ‘right’ to health care is not violated when we cannot afford to exchange for a certain type of health care, but our ‘right’ to health care is violated when we could very well exchange for a certain type of health care but are otherwise prevented from doing so by coercion from an outside source. We touched on the subject of coercion previously, but there’s another facet to coercion via the government, with respect to health care, which I’d like to illustrate now, albeit rather briefly.

It is my contention that the government does not facilitate our ‘right’ to health care as I defined above, but rather the government violates this ‘right’ through coercion, or regulation. That’s quite a bold accusation, you might say, but as we’ve already examined previously, government regulation and involvement seems to be directly related to the rising costs of health care, among other things. Cost of health care is apparently the number one concern for the majority of Americans according to a recent Gallup poll. When Americans were asked what they personally perceived as the biggest problem with health care in the United States and overwhelming 38% responded that the cost was their top concern, followed by a 15% vote for too many being uninsured. In addition, we notice an interesting trend, as shown in the graph below, in the opinions of Americans regarding whether or not it is the government’s responsibility to provide health care to all Americans.

So, if rising costs is the number one concern of Americans with regard to health care, then perhaps this is the core problem we should be addressing–not the subsequent symptom of too many being uninsured. The government doesn’t need to be endowed with the responsibility of providing health care to us, we (along with the free-market) can do that ourselves, if we are allowed to.

What if federal deregulation of the health care industry was Obama’s crusade, rather than expanding regulation? What if insurance companies were left to be able to provide their services to any American, no matter where they lived? What if Americans were allowed to shop around for the best health care for their personal needs, thus commanding competition amongst the health care providers? What if insurance companies were allowed to custom-craft individual policies to satisfy the specific needs of every American or American family? What if insurance companies did not have to collectively pool all of their customers under the same umbrella plan? What if pharmaceutical drugs were allowed to be imported from foreign countries? What if pharmaceutical patent laws did not prevent competition, research and advancement? What if medical devices and goods were not subject to discriminatory taxation? What if people were not penalized for how much money they make or for their personal preference with regard to their own health care? What if doctors and institutions acquired their medical license through competing voluntary accreditation agencies  rather than government bureaucracies? What if our health care laws, legislation and regulations were not influenced by the bank accounts of special-interests? What if the sick or unhealthy were not subsidized (read: encouraged) to be sick or unhealthy? What if freedom were to return to the health care market, to both provider and consumer? What if our liberties and natural rights were protected and facilitated rather than oppressed and violated?

I could go on and on about this topic, providing further historical and empirical evidence to continue making a case against government intervention in the health care industry, but for now this will have to do. Perhaps I’ll post more about this issue as it continues to develop in Washington. In the meantime I’d suggest taking a look at the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s Health Care Reader, a collection of informative and thoughtful articles on the issue of health care from a free-market perspective, if anything I’ve shared with you here has inspired you to think and feel as I do.

Thanks for reading, feel free to comment and stay tuned for more.

Farm subsidies have become so corrupt that payments sometimes go to dead people for years. Federal farm subsidies, which were originally meant to help struggling farmers survive, are now little more than taxpayer robbery, taking taxpayer wealth from working Americans and sending it to the have-mores. According to 11 years’ worth of Environmental Working Group data that tracks $200 billion in subsidies, the wealthiest 10 percent of “farmers” have collected 75 percent of the money. That’s exactly the kind of socialism that Rep. Bachmann and her elite ilk like.

Link.

Here’s a really horrible story. Well, the story itself is good, but the extreme moral manuevering being performed is horrible. Michelle Bachman, Chuck Grassley, Grassley’s son and grandson, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Stephanie Sandlin, and others, all accept rediculous amounts of money from the government through farm subsidies every year. They aren’t farmers. What are they don’t pulling down 25,000 – 50,000 a year in what essentially becomes welfare for the wealthy.

That’s the bad.

The worse is that America is a socialist country in many ways. We really do subsidize (read socialism) wealthy farming companies to grow corn, rice, cotton, soybeans and rice. Those 5 items are sold on the global markets for rediculously cheap prices. Tax dollars taken out of your pay check are sent to wealthy land holders so that they can sell product for cheaper than it costs to grow it. This has thrown the entire US food industry upside down. Do you know why crappy foods like high-fructose corn syrup is so cheap? Because your tax dollars are making it so. The government is picking winners and losers every single day. We haven’t had a free market in a century.

Well, Christmas Break has already started, and I’m already sort of bored. Sort of. Of course I’m going to be idle – it’s almost basically expected for people my age to be idle when there’s no school, I guess. Not to justify schooling in any way. It’s just temporary mental slavery for future capital. How sick is that?

So, on Friday, I chilled out with my Advising Group (in other words, my group for advise), and I just had a giant, approximately 1000 calorie, Double Cheeseburger with French Fries at the side. Apparently, I forgot to even bring money that day, so someone had to invest in me. The thing is, I have to pay 15% interest now. Meaning I owe about 23 dollars. Kind’ah sucks, but hey, I ate it out. Up to that extent, it was a good deal. He was the only one wanting to invest, so what the hell else could I do?

So I ate my burger and such, and was extremely full.

This was at Dave & Buster's by the way.

Good thing you get the card to play all the arcade games for free.

All I did was eat and watch everyone else use their cards up until they finally had to do what I was doing. I actually gave my card to one of my friends looking to get some tickets to buy things from the shop. He bought a giant teddy bear, and bought me candy that I told him he owed me.

I think my trip would’ve been much more fun had I (1) brought money, and/or (2) used my card up for Guitar Hero. Dang. I really wanted to play Guitar Hero for the first time. The guitar is so phallic, it must’ve been a turn on (of course, I’m completely kidding arounfdBut then these girls and these two guys had to hog the goddamn game after so much waiting. Seeing as I’m self-conscious, especially when doing something new, I would not think of joining them. My fingers would break and would not be available for lick-sucking action.

I know the graphics look corny, but it's because of the music that I felt like playing (though I did not).

So I missed my opportunity. But, ‘ey, who gives a fuck?

Because, really, the best came after that, when I finally got home. And I know that seems ironic, but it’s true. I gave Abe my e-mail, and he finally got on that day, and was so fucking awesome! I found out all sorts of things that made him seem even more alluring. But, too bad for you, he got so up close and personal, I have to respect it, so I won’t reveal much of what we talked about here.

Right when he first got on, I felt my heart jump with giddyness.

After the conversation, I felt a sense of impending doom.

But it was still awesome.

So now I’m always eager to talk to him? Unfortunately, he holds a very busy life, in my opinion. Especially this vacation, he will be packing up, and visiting elsewhere to celebrate the Christmas spirit. I forget exactly when he will be leaving, but I just hope I get to talk to him some time during this vacation, really. He has even less time to get on when it’s not a school vacation.

Now I’m anxious as Lucifer was before he was thrown down into the pits of the underground and dubbed Satan by his self-righteous observers and haters.

Ah! Also, I’ve recently downloaded some PDF-versions of Austrian economics books and libertarian political books, which I’m highly proud of. I got all of them from the Mises Institute. Particularly Man, Economy, and State: An Economic Treatise with Power and Market: Government and Economy by Murray Rothbard, that is extremely long. I’ve only gotten up to prices and supply and demand in the context of bartering (direct exchange), and it’s quite a difficult hurdle to get through.

This is a humongous peace of economic sacralige, which means it's probably amply correct. And it seems to me that the Austrian economic theory is so far completely sound.

I’ve also downloaded the following works by Murray Rothbard: For a New Liberty,  and The Ethics of Liberty, as well as the Study Guide version of Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market.

- Waiting in Line – Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Medicine:

- Uncle Sam – Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Medicine:

- Joe Public – Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Medicine:

- Uncle Sam – Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Medicine:

……except when it clashes with the interests of our corporatist backers. Yes, under the typical – yet fake - guise of showing concern for “consumer safety,” the Senate rejected a provision that would allow Americans to import foreign prescription drugs. But, of course, all this economics nonsense about making people better off  through free trade cannot be tolerated! Our lawmakers are not concerned with people’s lives or anything trivial like that. No, what’s at stake are the profits of the pharmaceutical companies that are lining up behind their re-election campaigns and their health care “reform.”

Yet these are the kind of market-based, sensible alternatives that conservatives must shout from the rooftops. We must work hard to demolish the myth that our health care system is anywhere near being a “free market.” As Milton Friedman would say, our system is indeed capitalist: there is a lot of capital that is controlled by a certain group of individuals. But the great difference is that in a free market, capital is saved, acquired, and controlled through free exchange and voluntary action. But in our system, capital is siphoned off and controlled by thousands of regulations and bureaucrats. It’s capitalist, all right; but so was the Soviet Union. The point is that it is not a system based on freedom.

To paraphrase Chesterton, it’s not that preserving a truly free system has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

(HT2 David Kramer)

- Joe Public – Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Medicine:

- Waiting in Line – Socialized Medicine vs. Free Market Medicine:

There are those who insist healthcare is a right. Is it? What is a right? The proper definition from Webster’s 1828 is this:

5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

According to the Declaration of independence, there were 3 rights recognized as descending to us from God: The rights to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, every man has the right to life and liberty, and to pursue that which will bring them happiness. It is very important to note that the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but a right to the ability to pursue happiness.

For example, it might make one happy to possess the house of their neighbor, but they do not have the right to take their neighbor’s house for their own. However, they do have the right to offer of their own possessions (typically money) to their neighbor in order to purchase the house from them. Likewise, the neighbor has the right to refuse any such offer.

It is on this premise that a free market operates: men and groups of men (companies) compete for things that bring some form of material happiness through trading, purchasing, leasing, borrowing, etc. Such a system preserves the right to seek happiness both of the people providing goods or services and those seeking those goods or services.

However, there are those who seek to make specific goods and services a right. Federal mandates forced banks and financial institutions to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they were seeking. Why? Because, in a properly operating free market, they could not afford the loans, and had no title or claim to the money the government mandated they be given.

Healthcare is comprised of goods and services provided by people. I have no right to demand that another person sacrifice life or limb or wealth to meet my needs. Likewise, when a government deems goods and services “rights” they are in fact mandating that “happiness” is itself a right. The inherent contradiction is this: the person who gains “free” or reduced goods and services may be happy, but the one being forced to give them up suffers loss. It is comparable to the previous example of a man coveting his neighbor’s house. Is it right that the government step in and force the neighbor to give up his house, regardless of the price offered? Further, not only does the government has no right to force the neighbor to give up his house, it has no right to spend money trusted to them by the taxpayers to do such a thing.

A government mandate that healthcare is a right, sets a dangerous precedent. What if the government then decrees that a job is a right? As surely as healthcare being a right would give the government (unconstitutional) authority to control the medical system, declaring that a job is a right would then give government unprecedented control of what was once a free market.

Indeed, the “Consumer Credit Protection Act of 2009 would grant the president unconstitutional powers to bailout any company he deems worthy, setting the state for dramatic government control. Also troubling are bills which would use tax payer money to pay or augment the wages of private sector workers!

Health care as a right deprives professionals of the right to exchange their services on a free market. It also subverts those who, out of their own personal desire and adherence to Christ’s teachings, would freely offer the fruits of their labor to those in need. Charity is not the duty of the government or the state, but the right of the people to engage in as they pursue happiness.

Progressives can demonize the profit (the right of people to exchange goods and services in a manner that both deem reasonable) motive as much as they want, but the truth is that the promise of profit is what drives many to innovate. People work tirelessly and researchers innovate and capitalists invest capital in hopes of getting a return that exceeds their expenses. Government bureaucrats can call profits “obscene” or “excessive” all day long, however if there was no profit, there would be no jobs, no innovation. If there had been no profit, there would have been no model T. If there had been no profit, we wouldn’t have computers, any number of products. Medicines, advanced medical technologies, and so on.

People who go into the medical field, have the right to seek whatever compensation they deem fit for their services, subject to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Not everybody is seeking profit as the primary motive, and are ready and willing to sacrifice profits for the ability to help those who cannot help themselves. When you force someone to give of their goods or abilities against their will, it is theft. Governments are not exempt from the 10 commandments, as they are headed by men and women. Theft, lying, coveting, lust, fornication and every manner of immorality runs amok in the highest levels of the states and countries. They must never be allowed to be “above the law” as far as offenses against the laws of the land go. Justice must be blind, and it must be granted for peasant and king alike.

The federal government’s role in the whole process is to ensure that the market remains free, patents are issued for the protection of inventions, and to provide redress for grievances which are referred from state and local courts.

Published first on thejeffersondemocrat.com

There are those who insist healthcare is a right. Is it? What is a right? The proper definition from Webster’s 1828 is this:

5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

According to the Declaration of independence, there were 3 rights recognized as descending to us from God: The rights to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, every man has the right to life and liberty, and to pursue that which will bring them happiness. It is very important to note that the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but a right to the ability to pursue happiness.

For example, it might make one happy to possess the house of their neighbor, but they do not have the right to take their neighbor’s house for their own. However, they do have the right to offer of their own possessions (typically money) to their neighbor in order to purchase the house from them. Likewise, the neighbor has the right to refuse any such offer.

It is on this premise that a free market operates: men and groups of men (companies) compete for things that bring some form of material happiness through trading, purchasing, leasing, borrowing, etc. Such a system preserves the right to seek happiness both of the people providing goods or services and those seeking those goods or services.

However, there are those who seek to make specific goods and services a right. Federal mandates forced banks and financial institutions to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they were seeking. Why? Because, in a properly operating free market, they could not afford the loans, and had no title or claim to the money the government mandated they be given.

Healthcare is comprised of goods and services provided by people. I have no right to demand that another person sacrifice life or limb or wealth to meet my needs. Likewise, when a government deems goods and services “rights” they are in fact mandating that “happiness” is itself a right. The inherent contradiction is this: the person who gains “free” or reduced goods and services may be happy, but the one being forced to give them up suffers loss. It is comparable to the previous example of a man coveting his neighbor’s house. Is it right that the government step in and force the neighbor to give up his house, regardless of the price offered? Further, not only does the government has no right to force the neighbor to give up his house, it has no right to spend money trusted to them by the taxpayers to do such a thing.

A government mandate that healthcare is a right, sets a dangerous precedent. What if the government then decrees that a job is a right? As surely as healthcare being a right would give the government (unconstitutional) authority to control the medical system, declaring that a job is a right would then give government unprecedented control of what was once a free market.

Indeed, the “Consumer Credit Protection Act of 2009 would grant the president unconstitutional powers to bailout any company he deems worthy, setting the state for dramatic government control. Also troubling are bills which would use tax payer money to pay or augment the wages of private sector workers!

Health care as a right deprives professionals of the right to exchange their services on a free market. It also subverts those who, out of their own personal desire and adherence to Christ’s teachings, would freely offer the fruits of their labor to those in need. Charity is not the duty of the government or the state, but the right of the people to engage in as they pursue happiness.

Progressives can demonize the profit (the right of people to exchange goods and services in a manner that both deem reasonable) motive as much as they want, but the truth is that the promise of profit is what drives many to innovate. People work tirelessly and researchers innovate and capitalists invest capital in hopes of getting a return that exceeds their expenses. Government bureaucrats can call profits “obscene” or “excessive” all day long, however if there was no profit, there would be no jobs, no innovation. If there had been no profit, there would have been no model T. If there had been no profit, we wouldn’t have computers, any number of products. Medicines, advanced medical technologies, and so on.

People who go into the medical field, have the right to seek whatever compensation they deem fit for their services, subject to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Not everybody is seeking profit as the primary motive, and are ready and willing to sacrifice profits for the ability to help those who cannot help themselves. When you force someone to give of their goods or abilities against their will, it is theft. Governments are not exempt from the 10 commandments, as they are headed by men and women. Theft, lying, coveting, lust, fornication and every manner of immorality runs amok in the highest levels of the states and countries. They must never be allowed to be “above the law” as far as offenses against the laws of the land go. Justice must be blind, and it must be granted for peasant and king alike.

The federal government’s role in the whole process is to ensure that the market remains free, patents are issued for the protection of inventions, and to provide redress for grievances which are referred from state and local courts.

This is not some lilly-liver, business as usual, tax-and-spend, bad-mouth America politician.  Allen West is a patriot who has proven himself on the field of battle.  He has proven that he values his country and the lives of his men above the enemies of America.  He is a patriot.  He reveres our constitution, and takes seriously the oath he took to defend it unlike the spineless power-grabbers in Washington who seem to be doing all they can to destroy the constitution.

When his men were in danger, he did what it took to get the information necessary to protect them.  He scared a terrorist, but never harmed him, and successfully stopped the attacks on his men.  He did this knowing full well that he was jeopardizing his career.  Yet he did what was RIGHT.

Listen to the words of a patriot in the video below.  If these words do not ring true with you, you may need to find another country to call home.

ELECTION 2010

Viral video: ‘Fight with me to take back America’

Passionate retired Army officer Allen West echoes founders in bid for Congress

Posted: December 18, 2009
12:15 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Allen West hasn’t changed his core message since falling short in a run for Congress last year, but with the political winds now at his back, the retired Army officer’s passionately delivered emphasis on constitutional principles of liberty, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and free-market solutions is attracting an audience well beyond Florida’s 22nd district.

A video of his rally cry to the party base in preparation for a 2010 run has drawn more than 1.2 million views on YouTube.com.

See Allen West’s speech:

West was introduced to the nation in 2003 when he faced criminal charges for using shock interrogation tactics to protect his soldiers in Iraq.

Taped at the Revolution Nightclub in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in October, the video captures West giving supporters a taste of what it must have been like to prepare for combat in Iraq with the lieutenant colonel.

“It’s OK to come out here and cheerlead,” he told the enthusiastic crowd. “But you’ve gotta get your butts out there and understand there’s a fight – and you’d better be willing to fight for this country.”

Recalling the oath he took as an Army officer to support and defend the Constitution, West said “there’s no statute of limitations on that oath, and, tonight, everyone of you needs to take that oath.”

Calling 2010 a defining moment for the nation, he cited Thomas Paine’s famous “times that try men’s souls.”

“If you’re here to shrink away from the duties, there’s a door. Get out,” West said. “But if you’re here to stand up – to get your musket, to fix your bayonet, to charge into the ranks – you’re my brother and sister in this fight.”

Allen West

West said Americans need to gather together and “start talking about restoring our liberty and fighting back against a tyrannical government.”

Recounting his own story of being raised in inner-city Atlanta by lower-middle class parents, he stressed America offers equal opportunity, not equal achievement.

He pointed out he received an education and earned a commission in the Army, where he served 22 years, “not because the government came down and tried to make the rules and change it for me.”

“We cannot live in a country where the government sits around and tries to design results and outcomes,” he said in the taped speech. “Every time they try to do that – Everyone has a right to own a home – how does that end up? Everyone has a right to health care – how does that end up?

“The Constitution says promote the general welfare, not provide welfare,” he said. “It is about setting conditions for our success.”

West said big government has produced an entitlement class, exemplified in a widely viewed video clip during the 2008 presidential campaign in which an Obama supporter exulted that if the Democrat won the White House, he would put gas in her car and pay her mortgage.

“If we are not willing to take a stand right now and take this country back and put it back on the right track with the principles and values it was established on, you’re complicit,” West said. “It’s your fault.

“It’s your fault,” he continued, pointing to different sections of the auditorium. “It’s your fault up there.”

West, who captured 45 percent of the vote in his Florida swing district in 2008 against incumbent Democratic Rep. Ron Klein, says his positions on the economy and national security are resonating in South Florida. And while he received no support from his party last year, the National Republican Congressional Committee has identified him as one of its most potent recruits.

Allen West leading a briefing in Afghanistan in 2007

As WND reported in 2003, West was threatened with court martial for tactics he used to flush out information from an uncooperative Iraqi policeman. Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn’t talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman’s head, producing an immediate flood of information that purportedly led to the arrest of two insurgents and cessation of attacks on West’s 4th Infantry Division battalion.

In an interview during last year’s campaign, West told WND his controversial ordeal in 2003 – during which he drew support from congressmen and many Americans who regarded him as a hero – should tell voters what kind of a lawmaker he would be, particularly when it comes to issues of defense.

“If you’re a bad guy, and you try to get between me and the safety and lives of American citizens, you’re going to lose,” West said.

Army prosecutors charged West with aggravated assault, and he faced the possibility of up to eight years in prison. At a hearing, West was asked by his defense attorney if he would do it again.

“If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can,” he said.

West eventually accepted a non-judicial punishment, the forfeiture of two months’ pay, about $5,000. He retired from the military and moved with his wife, Angela, and two young daughters to Broward County, Florida, where he taught high school. He served in Afghanistan as an adviser to the Afghan army until November 2007.

John Stossel’s new show is rapidly becoming one of my favorites.  This week he had John Mackey, the Whole Foods CEO who wrote an Op Ed on the health care debate and how they handle things in a more free market way at Whole Foods.  What amazes me is how this whole debate has been framed now to the point where the obvious advantages of a free market are completely ignored and the argument is over what level of socialism we need.  Mackey understands this and articulates it well.  It’s really shocking that he is a successful business man who employs a whole bunch of people doing his part to make life in this country better. 

Here is what we seem to have in the health care debate.  There are people who don’t want to pay for their healthcare.  Some seem to think that the government has an endless supply of money that doesn’t come from the people of this country, it’s just there.  So they want the government to pay for things they have a hard time affording.  I heard someone call into a radio program saying they have no problem paying the $20 co pay to go visit the doctor, but as soon as there are tests and things that need to be done, it costs hundreds or even over a thousand dollars.  They can’t afford it and don’t feel they should have to pay for it.  They don’t seem to even realize that their company paid insurance is a part of their compensation in one way or another.  They expect the entire cost of running the medical facilities, buying the supplies and equipment, paying the salaries of the nurses and doctors and all other employees to be covered with $20 co pays.  There are others who understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but they feel that those who have been more fortunate should foot the bill, all of us pooling our resources to pay for health care for everyone in the country.  The biggest problem with this is the structure they want to use to get this done puts government in control through regulation or actually running it and it destroys competition. 

Why not have government run it or regulate it heavily?  For starters, every single time government gets involved in anything there is a ton of waste and corruption.  This will never change.  Politicians in charge of money try to get their hands on as much of it as they can to buy political favor.  I have yet to have anyone give me one example of a government run program that is not full of waste and corruption.  Secondly, government thwarts competition both running up cost and reducing innovation.  If I hear one more politician who has never run a business or profit center try to tell me that we need government because it provides competition I’m going to scream.  Government doesn’t have to play by the same rules as private sector businesses, they don’t have to be profitable, they can continue to run up cost and waste money and no private business can compete with them over the long haul.  Only a free market where anyone can start a business without heavy regulation and run it the way they want will provide true competition and reduced cost.

So what should happen?  People who want a free market and lack of government involvement are painted as heartless and greedy these days.  They just want to keep their money and don’t care if people die because they can’t afford healthcare.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  NOBODY wants people dying in the streets in this country.  But socialism in any form will reduce the standard of living in this country overall and could bankrupt it.  Insurance regulation should be reduced to the very bare minimum.  I should not have to buy insurance that covers hair plugs and anyone should be able to start an insurance company with whatever innovative coverage and cost they want to include and sell it in any state.  This will immediately drop the cost to where it belongs.  Healthcare providers should be free to compete as well.  Cheaper doc in a box facilities competing with higher end facilities should be free to run their businesses as they see fit and the price of healthcare will find it’s level.  Employer based insurance should be eliminated.  It should have never been created.  This is another government regulation that just created huge problems.  People should own their coverage, so if they lose a job, they still have their insurance.  It stays with them and we eliminate the problem of pre-existing conditions.  Now what about those who cannot afford insurance or the healthcare they need?  Ideally we should have a privately run and privately funded welfare system to cover those who cannot provide for their own food, shelter, and healthcare.  We want everyone to have healthcare, but we also don’t want them starving or homeless.  Nobody should live that way in this country.  To throw together a private system for welfare, basically charities raising and handling all the money would be impossible at least right away.  Maybe it could be done over the long haul.  So a single government welfare system that provides for things like insurance premiums, food, and shelter for those making under a certain amount of money makes sense to cover what private charities cannot.  This could easily be done and tracked so as soon as they are making enough to pay these things, the government recovers some or all of their individual benefits paid out from their taxes.

If we keep letting government regulate and run things, we’ll ruin all business in this country and reduce the standard of living for everyone except those politicians in the ruling class.  We all want a great standard of living and for everyone to be taken care of.  We are not on that path and this debate needs to be re-framed.

Todd Kmiec

Todd Kmiec & Associates

todd@toddkmiec.com

I read an insightful blog piece by Marius Redelinghuys about the Congress of the People’s (COPE) ideological advancement, if one could call it that. The political party started out with an ideology known as ‘progressivism’, which left political analysts and ordinary citizens scratching their heads. What type of progressive party would they be? Economically or socially progressive? People might have wondered if their new ideology was a nice way of saying liberal. But it wasn’t that, not at all.

Young COPE (or is it ‘Cope’?) members like Marius have begun the internal dialogue which will hopefully lead to a strong, defined ideology for the party. An ideology that means something; not one that baffles people or makes the party look a little inept at understanding political theory. If COPE took the plunge and came out of the proverbial (political) closet, and announced that they were social democrats, I’d have much more respect for them. If the party could base their policies on real political rhetoric and ideas, they would be much more credible; instead of claiming their policies are ‘progressive’.

But even if they finally mustered up the courage to declare themselves to be the distant ideological cousin of both the ANC (centre-left/leftist) and the DA(liberal), that wouldn’t mean I’d support them any more than I currently do. Social democracy may be a successful ideology, but it is tied to many social and economic ills.

The positive aspects of Social Democracy include:

• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws, for example funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

The negative aspects of Social Democracy include:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidised programmes of education, healthcare, childcare and related social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists) with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labour rights (ie supporting worker access to trade unions) consumer protections and fair market competition.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
• Fair trade over free trade.

Why are the above aspects negative?

The mixed-market economy does not work in South Africa, just look at our ailing SOEs (SAA, Eskom, etc). A free-market model – on the other hand – provides excellent services,  a range of choices and opportunities to the populace. One should also note that it is much, much harder to stimulate entrepreneurship and the growth of small enterprises in a social democratic state, due to burgeoning state regulations and red-tape. Entrepreneurship is integral to the future economic growth of South Africa, and social democracy may harm that future growth.

Social democrats advocate large-scale welfare programmes, but does this truly help the people who need welfare the most? In the UK the Labour Party (social-democratic in nature) has run the country for over a decade and it must be stated that one in six children in that country have grown up in a household where NO-ONE works. The miracle of social democracy? If people don’t want to work, give them welfare. Let other hard-working taxpayers pay for not only the indigent, but also the lazy. Instead of creating a society that lives off state handouts (which is something social democrats advocate), create jobs and a social security safety-net for those who really need it.

Progressive Taxation! What could be wrong with taxing people to death to fund state expenditure? Everything. It’s like punishing the hard-working South African people for working so hard. Social democrats increase the size of the government, encroaching on the lives of individuals (look at Europe’s nanny-states), and on top of this unnecessary increase in government control they need to introduce higher taxes to fund their new operations. Higher taxes reduce spending power. Reduced spending power negatively affects the economy.  Marius brought up the UK Liberal Democrats (an eighties merger between the Liberals and Social Democrats) when speaking about a possible DA-COPE merger; but he failed to notice that the LibDems abhor certain social democratic policies, such as the creation of a nanny-state. Furthermore, the LibDems in their taxation policies call for: fairness, simplicity, certainty, efficiency, transparency, and global competitiveness. Quite contrary to what some modern social democrats think…

Fair trade over free trade is another policy which reduces freedom of choice, economic growth; and introduces protectionist policies which reduce the power of the individual and South African businesses. Fair trade means that if the US makes brilliant purses for a cheaper amount and we produce similar purses of a lessor quality for a higher cost in Port Elizabeth, the state would not allow the US stock to enter the market and local consumers will be forced to buy more expensive (and less quality) products. Does that seem fair? The state pretends that it is trying to protect local businesses by doing that, but in effect we are preventing those businesses from benefiting from competition and possible foreign trade.

Social democrats may want to search for social justice. But I’m searching for freedom. Aren’t free minds, free markets and freedom of choice better than a nanny-state?