Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

The More the Plans Fail, the More the Planners Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Another gem for the sage of Palo Alto:

A Non-Prediction

By Thomas Sowell

When people learn that you are an economist, they often want you to predict which way the economy is going. There seem to be more than the usual number of calls for such predictions lately. But an economist should be more aware than others are of how hazardous such predictions can be.

One reason is that what happens in the economy is affected by what politicians do in Washington— and who can predict what politicians will do?

However, let me go out on a limb, and try to predict what politicians will not do.

What would probably get the economy recovering fastest and most completely would be for the President of the United States and Congressional leaders to shut up and stop meddling with the economy. But it is virtually impossible that they will do that.

Think about telling all the millions of people who have lost their jobs, their homes or their businesses: “I really messed you up but, hey, nobody’s perfect. So I’m going to leave things alone now.” In fact, that would be hard even to tell yourself.

If the stimulus isn’t working, the true believers have to believe that it is only because it hasn’t been tried long enough, or with enough money being spent.

There are always calls for the government to “do something” when things are going bad. Those who make such calls have almost never bothered to check out what actually happens when the government does something, as compared to what happens when the government does nothing.

It is not just free market economists who think the government can make a mess bigger with its interventions. It was none other than Karl Marx who wrote to his colleague Engels that “crackbrained meddling by the authorities” can “aggravate an existing crisis.”

The history of the United States is full of evidence on the negative effects of government intervention. For the first 150 years of this country’s existence, the federal government did not think it was its business to intervene when the economy turned down.

continue

Obama Has Put the United States in the Fast Lane on the Road to Serfdom

Posted on by
5

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater.

In 1964 Ronald Reagan asked what the score was. He wanted to know if the myriad government ‘anti-poverty’ programs had succeeded in any discernible way. The way Reagan saw it “welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.” The Democrats and New Dealers had controlled Washington for three decades. What that era demonstrated was the folly of concentrated, centralized power. The federal government proved to be overextended and ineffective.

Since Barack Obama has come to power, he has gone down the road of FDR-esque socialism. Where tax cuts, reduced spending and cutting back the red tape of regulations has a proven pro-growth track record, Obama has taken the opposite path. So, let us ask, what is the score? Is the economy recovering? Are people getting back to work? Or is the situation worsening? The answer is obvious. The latest damning numbers that indict the Obama administration come from the USA Today.

USA Today reports that one in six Americans rely on some sort of government anti-poverty program, the highest such ratio in United States history. Moreover:

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That’s up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007…

The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. “Private physicians are already indicating that they’re at their limit,” says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.

Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits…

Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — “the highest numbers on record”…

More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.

As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion.

It is almost inconceivable that 40 million Americans receive food stamps. With 10 million people collecting unemployment insurance, Obama wants to extend the program to cover people for 99 weeks – that’s nearly 2 years. If someone is on the government dole for 2 years it isn’t unemployment insurance, it is a welfare program. How about 50 million people on Medicaid? Medicaid was supposed to be a way to insure people mired in poverty. Despite Obama and the Democrats best efforts, 50 million people are not one paycheck away from debtors prison.

Pick any example from the USA Today story and look at the enormous numbers. President Obama has put the United States in the fast lane on the road to serfdom. The aforementioned ever expanding welfare programs create, promote, and maintain a culture of helplessness. People are encouraged to stay home and depend upon a benevolent federal government for their well-being.  At this juncture there can be no doubt that the Democrats do not care if they collapse the system from within, so long as they can maintain their ironclad grasp on power a little while longer.

Sarah Palin – an Articulate and Fearless Voice for Conservatism

Posted on by
3

With President Obama’s job approval rating falling all the way down to 46%, and his disapproval rating climbing to 49%, according to Real Clear Politics, which averages all major polls, it is impossible to ignore the choice the GOP will have to make by 2012: who will be the standard bearer against Obama?

Barack Obama and the Democrats have been relentless in advancing their statist agenda. They are taking over the economy one piece at a time, from the banks, to the auto companies to healthcare and beyond. Every day they are in power, they find new ways to stifle freedom and kill the American Dream. While this has proven incredibly harmful, it gives the Republican Party an opportunity to contrast itself against the radical left. Where the Democrats offer socialism, the Republicans can advocate a pro-freedom agenda.

Sarah Palin has been the most effective voice of the conservative alternative to the Democrats’ European style socialism. Through her Facebook posts, Twitter messages, television appearances and public speeches, the former Governor of Alaska has been a one woman wrecking crew, taking on Obama and his party at every turn. Sarah Palin is an articulate and fearless voice for modern, common-sense conservatism. The Left has predictably deployed its calumny tactics, trying to slime the Palin family. They have not quieted her.

However, there are still some on the Right that remain unconvinced. Their arguments against Palin are usually along the lines of: She’s unintelligent and she can’t win because she’s ‘too conservative.’ All of which, of course, is wrong.

The media uses the same tactics against every Republican candidate. Every last one. Does the intelligence argument sound familiar? In 1964 Barry Goldwater was dumb. Next, Gerald Ford was falsely portrayed as a bumbling idiot, then Ronald Reagan was an uneducated country bumpkin, Dan Quayle became the next target, followed by George W. Bush, who was the dumbest man in  America, according to the left, from 2000-2008. As for the ‘smart’ candidates? The Left loves to extol the brilliance of the man from Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter, to this day. They were enamored with the intellect of John ‘D-student’ Kerry. And then there is the ‘genius’ that currently occupies the Oval Office.

On one hand the ‘idiots’ cut taxes, grew the economy, and won the Cold War. On the other hand the “effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals” (as Spiro Agnew once put it) who have ascended to the Presidency have put the country’s very survival on the brink. Their policies have put the economy on life-support, swelled the ranks of the unemployed, and emboldened tyrants the world over.

The Right has to stop looking towards the self-appointed arbiters of intelligence for validation. Instead of repeating what David Brooks wrote in the New York Times, read, listen to and watch Governor Palin. Her positions are well thought-out and genuinely conservative. They are common-sense solutions to today’s problems. A Harvard education does not ensure sound decision making (in fact, a Harvard education may be detrimental to good decision making).

The Left disdains what Angelo Codevilla termed the “Country Class.” This classification contains the vast majority of Americans; people that have never attended an Ivy League institution, haven’t risen through the bureaucracy, and have to work every day to stay afloat. Sarah Palin is the best representative the ‘Country Class’ has on the political front. She has an accent that liberals mock. So do most Americans. She comes from a small town, as do most Americans. And most of all, she believes in God, an indefensible position to the modern Left. However, that is a position Palin shares with 92% of the American people. All these factors are why the Left savages Palin. The intelligence argument is old hat for Leftist smear merchants, and in this case, as with all the others documented above, it is an outright lie.

The ‘too conservative’ and ‘not electable’ arguments come up every election. The media says some radical leftist (Carter, Obama, Kerry…) is a ‘pragmatic centrist.’ Meanwhile, mainstream Republican challengers are made out to be conservative extremists. Sadly, conservatives ceaselessly desire acceptance ‘at the big table.’ They are not going to get it – ever. The GOP nominates duds, like John McCain, because they are ‘electable.’ ‘Electable’ candidates are losers. McCain got thumped. Congressional Republicans were Democrat-lite for nearly a half-century – and they never won (although, Bob Michel did get great tee-times with prominent Democrats). In 1980 the Republicans nominated their ‘conservative zealot.’ His name was Ronald Reagan. Reagan won two of the largest landslides in American history. In 1994, Congressional Republicans finally decided to give conservatism a try, and they won. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say “the blueprint for victory is there.” That is not to say conservatives can’t lose, as Barry Goldwater proved. In order to win, candidates need the total package, not just ideology. Of the rumored 2012 candidates the only conservative that stands out as a relaible, viable option is Sarah Palin. Her approval ratings have steadily climbed, following her low after the 2008 campaign, in which she was handled embarrassing poorly and was later even demonized by McCain apparatchiks. Can she win? No one can answer that now. Ruling her out due to the red herring of ‘electability’ at this point is foolish.

Conservatives have to stop striving for the approval of the elites. Instead of seeking the good graces of the ‘Ruling Class,’ the ‘Country Class’ should focus on advancing an agenda that will be embraced by the majority of Americans. That agenda is built upon the timeless principles that the Founders described as “self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And the best trumpeter of that platform is Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin's Path to Victory

Posted on by
4

A month ago I wrote that Chris Matthews understood the electoral path to victory Sarah Palin could take in the primaries. In sum, she could win in Iowa, where she should have the support of Evangelical Christians, the most important voting bloc in the state’s primary, have a strong showing in New Hampshire, win South Carolina, where she was an early supporter of the woman who will be the next governor there, then win in Michigan, where she made inroads in 2008 when she did not want to concede the state, and with her immensely popular book tour last year. From there she would have an enormous delegate lead and all the momentum. It’s not a fait accompli, as Matthews makes it sound, but is entirely plausible.

Will Sarah run in 2012? I tend to think that Matthews is correct. Since she resigned her governorship, Palin has been available to write more books, post opinions on facebook and twitter (that define political debates – see: death panels), do more television and deliver more speeches. In addition, Palin has been touring the country, endorsing political candidates. She has been shrewd in her endorsements, picking candidates that have a good chance of wining, and thus owing her a favor in 2012. This strategy is similar to what Richard Nixon did after losing the 1960 presidential election. Eventually, Nixon had accumulated so many chips that it seemed as though the entire GOP was in his pocket. Having loyal supporters in key states is always important in organizing a primary campaign, and Palin is acknowledging that by supporting candidates that can win.

The establishment and the left write Sarah Palin off at their own peril. They ridiculed Ronald Reagan, calling him a ‘B-list actor’ and a country bumpkin, with extreme views. However, he was able to relate to the American people. In 1989, Ronald Reagan said, “I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation – from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscover of our values and our common sense.” Reagan believed in the United States of America, and that his country was the greatest force for good in human history. Those ideas resonate with people. Sarah Palin expresses those same principles. She is what Obama would call a “bitter clinger” – in other words an American. No one knows if Sarah Palin will run or not, but if she does her homespun wisdom and unflinching belief in American Exceptionalism will make her a force to reckoned with.

Libertas Post Profile of Andrew Lawton

Posted on by
8

Nate Hendley from the Libertas Post interviewed me a couple of weeks ago for his website. I really enjoyed chatting with him about Ann Coulter, Tea Parties, my public healthcare nightmare, and lots of other stuff, so I would encourage you all to check it out here!

What’s your opinion of Harper? Is he doing a good job or are you angry at the Conservatives now?

I’m not angry at the Conservatives. I’ve never been one of those people that wanted to throw the Conservative Party under the bus. I am a member of that party. I will vote for that party in the next election, most likely, unless something really major comes up. From an analytical standpoint, I think Harper does need to do a lot between now and the next election to get back some of the base—our listeners, people who read our blog. There are some genuine conservatives out there, who have been conservatives their whole life who have issues with Harper as a leader. They feel he has been going too much to the centre. I think there are reasons for making compromises in government. I’m not blind, however. I do think he has some work to do to hold onto the base.

NYT Red Alert

Posted on by
4

From the New York Times:

A Texas pipeline tycoon who died two months ago may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free…

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury…

The bonanza in tax savings for Mr. Duncan’s descendants is sure to be unsettling to those who have paid estate taxes on more modest wealth — until Jan. 1 of this year, it applied to any estate valued at more than $3.5 million, taxing only the money exceeding that threshold, or $7 million for a couple’s estate.

O no! heaven forbid a “Texas pipeline tycoon” gets to pass on his hard-earned estate to his heirs without the government getting a piece of the pie. This is an American travesty.

For those of you unfamiliar with the ‘estate tax,’ it is a way for the government to tax people once they have died. Having already paid taxes on the money in the form of income tax, the government proceeds to charge citizens for the privilege of dying. You see, the government is the source of all wealth. In fact, you do not have a ‘right’ to your property. Rather, the government ‘owns’ your property and loans it to you throughout your life. As such, once you die, the source, the government, has a right to recollect what it has loaned you. That is what a death tax means.

The Times story continued: “[a]dvocates of the tax say it is unconscionable that Congressional leaders have allowed the richest Americans to reap a new tax break at a time when deficits are soaring and the income gap between wealthy and poor citizens remains near historic levels.” And there you have it. The purpose of the tax code is not really to fund the necessary functions of government. Instead, the tax code is used to “spread the wealth around.” Sadly, it is not just the peons at the Times that view the tax code through this Marxist lens – the President of the United Sates hold the very same opinion. In 2008 then candidate Obama promised to raise the capital gains tax rate. He was told that such a move would actually reduce government revenues, as it has in the past. His response was that he didn’t care – it is unfair that people “wok the stock market” and don’t pay higher taxes. Of course, there was also O’s famous run-in with Joe the Plumber. It doesn’t matter to the left that the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts all actually increased government revenues. They are not interested in reality and helping people. No – they want soak the rich and make everyone equally miserable as opposed to disproportionally successful.

Strictly Right Radio episode 30

Posted on by

In this episode of Strictly Right Ari and Andrew discuss public breast feeding, Helen Thomas’ fair-well, Obama’s (non-)commemoration of D-Day, a fantastic It Must Be A Liberal, a full Islam stack and more.

You can listen to this episode online or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.

Next Target: Food

Posted on by
1

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

In the April 30th episode of Strictly Right Radio Andrew and I discussed the left’s relentless assault on individual liberty. The left, and many well meaning people, may think this to be hyperbole. This is an argument I had back in March on the Michael Coren Show. The Obama administration vindicates my position every day. We have seen it in health care, banking regulations and a whole host of other fields. They want to take away your liberty. They believe, as Ronald Reagan said of the left in his day, in “abandon[ing] the America Revolution and confess[ing] that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” The latest example of this arrogance of power comes in a pending attempt to control what children eat.

The White House warns,

“The childhood obesity epidemic in America is a national health crisis.” (of course – everything is a Crisis!)

The review by the Task Force on Childhood Obesity says one out of every three children is overweight or obese. The task force is a key part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to solve the problem of obesity within a generation. President Obama ordered the comprehensive review of the issue…

The task force wants junk food makers and marketers to go on what amounts to an advertising diet. It says media characters that are often popular with kids should only be used to promote healthy products. If voluntary efforts fail to limit marketing of less healthy products to young viewers, the task force suggests the FCC should consider new rules on commercials in children’s programming. It also challenges food retailers to stop using in-store displays to sell unhealthy food items to children.

The advisory panel proposes better food content labeling on products and vending machines. Restaurants and vending machine companies are urged to display calorie counts. The experts say the FDA and USDA should cooperate with the food and beverage industries to develop a standard system of nutrition labeling on the front of packages. The study also suggests that restaurants should re-evaluate portion sizes, improve kids’ menus and list more healthy food choices.

The White House study says school systems should consider efforts to promote healthier food in cafeterias. One idea: “swap deep fryers for salad bars.”

Some of you may say ‘so what? Obesity is a problem (though to my knowledge not an infectious disease) and this sounds like a good solution.’ You may also think that laws that forbid smoking in restaurants are a step in the right direction, because smoking is ‘bad.’ This is the slow creep of tyranny. It is not within the purview of the federal government to make such decisions for us. Is smoking bad for your health? Of course it is. I must have missed the section of the Constitution that gave the government the right to determine what is ‘good’  and what is ‘bad’ for my health. Now the FCC is going to make new rules on who can run advertisements on children’s programing based on the nutritional value of the products? Forgive me, but I thought parents were responsible for what their children put in their mouths, not the federal government. If parents want to let their children get fat, so be it – what you eat is no business of the government. Kids like sugary and fatty foods – who doesn’t? The left thinks you are just the lowly hoi polloi. As George Will said, “the core of today’s liberalism [is that] the American people are such dopes they cannot be counted upon [to make their own decisions].” Whether the state’s intentions are benevolent or malicious, the fact is that every day the left is conspiring, trying to find new ways to ‘help,’ or as Cass Sunstein says, “nudge” you in the ‘right’ direction. The result is a usurpation of liberty and usually a state orchestrated, ‘unforeseen’ disaster. It is our duty to remember that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same,” as Ronald Reagan said.

(H/T HA)