Somewhere out there is a postulate that states, "More government equals less freedom." And if there isn't one there should be, because that's one of the unwritten rules of life.
Here's another one: the way our form of government is constructed, we're free to do as we please unless and until there's a law against something. This is why no one needs a busy Congress, for if they're busy writing laws, they're busy making sure we're all less free.
Now that I've established The Backwards Political Postulate, here's a story you won't like if you love your freedom, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal: Regulator Without Peer.
Congress may be mired in gridlock, but the federal bureaucracy is busier than ever. In 2013 the Federal Register contained 3,659 "final" rules, which means they now must be obeyed, and 2,594 proposed rules on their way to becoming orders from political headquarters.
If you wonder why our economy is in the shitter, wonder no more. We'll never see a robust economy again until we start electing people who will dedicate their lives to reducing the size, expense, and intrusiveness of the federal government.
During the four years that marked President Barack Obama’s first term in office, the real median income of American households dropped by $2,627 and the number of people in poverty increased by approximately 6,667,000, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.
Someone help me remember, is this the "Hope" part or the "Change" part?
The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits climbed last week to a one-month high, showing little progress in the labor market. Jobless claims rose by 4,000 for a second week to reach 372,000 in the period ended Aug. 18, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 41 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for 365,000. The four-week moving average, a less volatile measure, increased to 368,000.
No wonder all the MSM talking heads don't want to mention the failure of the Obama administration to revive the economy.
I've stated before that everything Obama has done needs to be undone, beginning with the repeal of ObamaCare, which Mitt Romney has pledged to do on his first day in office.
I'm eggstatic, ex-static, happy to hear this. Mitt appears to be a truly reform-minded candidate who recognizes all to well the economic destruction that Obama's Marxist policies have inflicted on the nation and seeks to reverse them.
I'll say this again because it bears repeating: under our form of government, each new law that is enacted reduces our freedom. The avalanche of legislation that came from the Pelosi and Reid-led 111th Congress must be repealed, along with other laws and regulations that have outlived their usefulness.
We've heard several extraordinarily large figures over the past few years from economists attempting to calculate the total of our outstanding federal debt.
And there are several numbers to be considered, depending on how you want to count it. But this new number is bordering on the incomprehensible. The true indebtedness of the United States now exceeds $222 trillion. Appearing on National Public Radio in August of 2011 Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University said...
If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, and subtract all the taxes we expect to collect, the difference is $211 Trillion. This is the fiscal gap. That is our true indebtedness.
I don't think I have enough fingers and toes to count that high.
On a partially related note, Ol' Slow Joe Biden thinks that your budget is your measure. Well, let's see your budget. Oh, right. You haven't produced one in over 1200 days, violating the law in the process. So, what does that tell us about your values?
Here's an oldie but a goodie. This video pretty much describes the Obama administration's stance on any plan that dares to address the Dimocrat's skyrocketing spending and irresponsible fiscal policies.
At 1:45, listen closely...
David Axelrod said today that both Romney and Ryan's views on the government were "extreme."
Really, Davey? Your statement merely points out how far to the left the Dims have gone: when you stand on sound principle and common sense, you're extreme. When you think that government should be operated like a household and not spend more than it takes in, you're extreme.
If you oppose the disaster that is this administration's fiscal policy, you're extreme.
Mitt's selection for Vice-President has sent shock waves throughout the Dimocrat camp. With the Olympics almost over, we'll see this campaign start to move to the front of the country's attention. The Dims and Obama now have to confront a bit of reality, especially when it comes to the budget (of which we now haven't had one of in over 1200 days), the economy, entitlements, spending, and the future of the country.
In other words, for the Dims, the refuse has become palpable. (Translation for Dims: Shit just got real.)
While the Obama campaign says it wants to tackle the issues and how to solve them (I can't believe I typed that with a straight face), the best they've been able to come up with so far is attack ads. Not that they're going to stop that anytime soon, but they should know that if they continue with the false ads and think they're swaying the average voter, the R & R team will be talking about the things that actually affect the country. Ryan is a numbers geek with a better handle on government spending, budget projections and fiscal policy that all the Dims combined.
For every attack ad that comes from Obama, Mitt will be perfectly justifiable in saying, "Barack, there you go again."
Obama will have lies, deceit, innuendo and smears on their side. The R & R camp will have hard numbers and the awful results of Obama's policies on their side.
This ad is somewhat of a letdown for me. It appears to be a generic political ad that really doesn't tell me anything I don't already know. I'm fairly certain it's aimed at low-information voters, which definitely isn't me or you.
Of course, being the inquisitive thing that I am, I want to hear details of Mitt's economic plan. I want to know specifics. I want to know I'm voting for a man who shares my convictions (no, not that nasty one with the chainsaw at the sorority sleepover, that was a long time ago) and who understands what needs to be done.
In other words, this ad just doesn't do it for me, but then again I don't think it's directed towards me. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Actually, what the sign says is "Obama can kiss my ass."
"When I heard what he said, I said 'I'm going to give him an answer in Chicago language--something he's used to,'" he told FoxNews.com. "If I would have said 'Dear Mr. President...' there wouldn't have been as strong of a response."
This guy is also a friend of a fellow Moron. So there's that.
Look on these numbers as the tread pattern of the boot on our economy's neck, if you will.
In sharp contrast to historical precedent, regulators have been unleashed on businesses during President Obama’s tenure. In the first three years of the Obama presidency, 106 major regulations adding annual costs of $46 billion were issued. The data show that more than three times the regulations have taken effect across the Obama administration’s first three years than over the same period in the Bush administration, and those regulations have extracted more than five times the amount of resources out of the economy's productive sector than those issued under Bush. Not coincidentally, the length of the federal register has increased to more than 82,000 pages in 2010 and 2011.
The increase in the cost of federal regulations has been large enough to significantly impact the total regulatory burden across all levels of government. The 2012 Cost of Government Report found that Americans will work 69 days in 2012 to pay for the cost of all regulations. In each year from 2009-2011 it took 72, 71, and 71 days of work to pay for regulatory costs; those figures are dramatically elevated from the 53-54 days of work it took annually to pay for the costs of regulation throughout the Bush administration. (emphasis mine, BB)
Read the whole thing and remember: anything government has done, government can undo.
We need some undoing in Washington something fierce.
I'm sure all fourteen of you saw the awful GDP numbers released last Friday that show an increase of only 1.5% for the second quarter of this year. This figure will probably be revised downward in an "unexpected" way in a few weeks.
What he fails to mention is that his plan is to cripple our economy.
Yeah, Barry, that's working out real well. Maybe even a little too well. And to be fair, he did build it, so he should be proud.
Sheesh, what a maroon. I can't wait until November when we can get this Marxist and his cronies out of Washington. As I mentioned earlier, I really hope the Romney administration knows what has to be done and begins doing it with all due diligence and haste.
If he turns into a Dimocrat-appeasing RINO, he'll be looking for another job in fours years himself.
I found some more economic news today. I really wish these folks would get on my schedule for Economic Monday.
From the Noisy Room comes this report that the real unemployment rate is even higher than we've been led to believe. Most estimates that dare include the size of the workforce put the current figure at around 11%, which is already pretty bad.
Now, a fellow by the name of John Williams says that this figure is low. Really low. It's more like 22%.
They mention the fact that the method for computing the actual number of unemployed Americans changed in 1994, quite possibly for political reasons. We can't have the current administration looking bad, now can we? As we've seen with this administration, they don't hesitate to concoct new phrases to try to make themselves look good like "Jobs, saved or created." This is a new metric that, rather transparently (at least to those of us who can still speak normal English, not Political NewSpeak), attempts to take credit for saving existing jobs as well as creating new ones.
So, if you're one of the millions of Americans like me who has lost your job or your home, how's that new phraseology working for ya'? Not too well, I'm guessing. It sure hasn't done anything for me.
But I digress.
It's painfully clear that we need a change in direction, away from the big-government overregulation that's currently strangling our economy. What we need is a return to the free market. This article over at PJ Media pretty much says it all, "Want Change? Let's Try Truly Free Markets."
For all of the talk about “change!” in this election, the incoming president’s political party, and perhaps the president-elect himself, seems stubbornly resistant to it.
Joseph Schumpeter famously — and admiringly — wrote about the “creative destruction” inherent in the actions of the free market. I refuse to use the word “capitalism” in this context, because it’s really a Marxist term and doesn’t capture the essence of a system in which individuals and corporations freely exchange goods and services without government interference, if indeed it ever did. When so-called “capitalists” who run the finance, real estate, insurance, and now automotive industries come to Washington, hat in hand, for taxpayer dollars, it’s laughably ludicrous to call them supporters of the free market. Moreover, the term “capitalism” doesn’t capture or connote the importance of property rights and the ability to exchange them freely that are at the base of human liberty in the way that the phrase “free market” does.
In Schumpeter’s view — which is supported abundantly by history — as new technological or financial or cultural innovations arise, or as the societal desires and composition change, so change the markets and business models for existing companies. They have a choice of adapting to that change or, if incapable of doing so for either corporate cultural or other reasons, they can die. They can die, that is, if they don’t have courtiers at the royal court. Then, their options are more varied and they don’t require the necessary and painful change to their ways of doing business that might be required to survive in the new circumstances.
As Instapundit says, read the whole thing.
One final note. You don't need a degree in economics to understand what's at the root of our current economic quagmire: We have a government that has become too big. It sticks it's nose into every corner of our lives, even when there is no need to do so. This is because we've allowed lobbyists and their special interests to dominate what was once the domain of the average citizen.
The corruption of political cronyism is also in play today as never before. The federal bailouts of GM and Chrysler are a prime example. Not too long ago, they would have filed for bankruptcy. This would've allowed them to renegotiate their labor contracts with the UAW. But, since organized labor was a big contributor to the Obama campaign, he felt obligated to support this group with taxpayer dollars instead.
He even went so far as to demonize those who would allow the car companies to file as being guilty of "doing nothing," which is more Leftalk for using the system that is in place, more of that "change" shit we've been fed. We lost billions of dollars by sidestepping this process, with little hope of ever getting that money back any time soon.
I just hope the Romney administration understands what must be done, and gets about the daunting task of doing it as quickly as possible.
There's a lot to be undone in Washington. Let's get to it.
Aren't things just wonderful? Don't you feel good about your future prospects and those of your family? Are you going to buy that vacation rental house on the coast? You know, the one you'll rent out when you aren't using it?
How about that new car to replace your old one that is in need of repair? That kitchen redo you've been needing for a couple of years? Some new clothes?
No?
I suppose inside the Beltway, things are just peachy. Even President Obama says the private sector is doing just fine with all those businesses you didn't build.
While this quarter's earnings reports have crossed a substantially lowered profit bar, future expectations through the year indicate a recession could be on the way.
Estimates for the third and fourth quarters have been dropped to levels not seen since the days of the 2008 financial crisis, below even the muted 2 percent expected level of inflation.
That's an ominous recession sign for an economy that has barely managed to attain positive growth this year even with the strong level of earnings beats, according to an analysis by Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at ConvergEx in New York.
"Revenue estimates for the back half of 2012 have been slowly working their way lower this year," Colas said. "This trend, however, has accelerated to the downside over the past 30 days and we are fast approaching levels where these estimates are unambiguously pointing to the risk of a U.S./global recession later into 2012 and 2013."
Shorter message: BOHICA.
Regardless of what you think about Glenn Beck, he accurately described a big problem with the "global economy" thingy a few years back. I looked on YouTube to find that particular episode where he outlines the plan to connect all the world's economies in the misguided hope that we'd all be too busy working to declare war on each other. I couldn't find the video clip, but I did find this transcript.
He compares the concept of warfare and Mutually Assured Destruction with Mutually Assured Economic Destruction. He says,
I read "Tragedy and Hope." It was written in the 1960s by a very well-respected professor — he's taught at Georgetown, Harvard, Princeton — named Carroll Quigley. He was a very close mentor to Bill Clinton; he's advised other presidents.
Quigley had a better idea than the Doomsday Device or mutually assured destruction to prevent nuclear war; tragedy is war, the hope was an end to the wars.
Instead of tying everybody to a master computer, they decided to tie the world's economies together. That way no country would dare wage total war on another without risking the destruction of its own economy. The book came out in the early '60s — can you think of a war since then where there has been a clear winner and loser since then? Vietnam. The Gulf wars. Afghanistan. The War on Terror. They did this to stop wars. Just like it's mutually assured destruction if someone launches a nuclear weapon; this is mutually assured economic destruction.
I've touched on the idea of economic warfare before. Be sure to click on the link inside that post to read the PDF that puts all the pieces together, after you get yourself a good stiff drink. You'll need it.
I've also mentioned how to stop a catastrophic global economic meltdown from happening here. We must decouple ourselves from this global economy as much as is practical. I'm not calling for protectionism or a trade war, or anything like that. We need to turn inward and make ourselves as whole and self-sufficient as possible. This means generating our own energy, mining our own ore, building our own products and creating as much wealth and circulating as much of our money within our shores, for each other, as possible.
I'm not claiming to be Miss Cleo, Batman, or Sarah Connor or anything, but I see a storm coming.
