Egypt: Told You So


The people of Egypt are revolting against their brutal, repressive dictator, Hosni Mubarak. We Americans are glad. We hate tyranny, and oppose it whenever we can.

If only the political class of the Federal government felt the same.

This dictator is same one in the five photographs at the right…one of each president since 1980.

The one that the US has helped keep in power for over thirty years, handing out $2,000,000,000 to their tyrant each year. If you adjust for inflation, this feeble country’s tiny economy has benefited from over one hundred billion dollars in American taxpayer dollars, plus military aid, technology, et cetera. How much interest in the National Debt has accumulated because of this?

Each time I’m listing the evil tyrannies the Federal government has supported in our name abroad, I mention Hosni Mubarak. And the neocon types carefully ignore it. But now we see why.

When Mubarak is, hopefully, overthrown by the people of Egypt, will they forget that we’re one of the main reasons they suffered under this evil regime for all these years?

The Iranians didn’t forget. They were forced to turn to the Soviet-funded Islamic Revolution, because we supported the Shah of Iran, their own tyrant. They then, rightfully, saw the US government as having made itself their enemy, by having supported their dictator.

Now the Egyptians may well turn to Islamic Fundamentalist movements of their own, against their own US Government-supported tyrant.  Should the next Egyptian government feel any different than the Iranians?

Sure, real Americans have never actually supported this kind of promotion of tyranny…but we’ve stood by and allowed our government to do it in our name, in violation of everything American.

How long are corrupt Federal bureaucrats going to keep supporting evil around the world, while we real Americans reap the blowback when people finally find a way to strike back against it?

We just gave more military aid to the tyrants ruling Saudi Arabia, for example. They are hated not only by their own people, but by almost all Muslims around the world, who see them (correctly) as a foreign-supported monstrosity, occupying their holiest city. How long before this chain reaction of revolution against American-supported dictators reaches Saudi Arabia? If their next regime hates us, who could blame them?

We need, as an increasing number of Americans are beginning to say aloud, to stop violating other countries in ways that we would not want other countries to do to us, like supporting tyranny abroad.

REPLACE the Bush Tax Cuts


The American taxpayer suffers under the massive cost of complying with the tax code, as well as having to pay the taxes, themselves...and the Bush tax "cuts" only made this worse

Republicans, Conservatives, libertarians, independents, and even Democrats who aren’t rabidly Liberal are all defending the Bush tax cuts, insisting that some or all of them must be extended…but it’s not because any of us like them.

In reality, even Conservatives and Republicans never really liked the cuts, except as a lesser evil versus no cuts at all…and the same is even more true, today.

Why aren’t the Bush “cuts” likable? Because they’re ridiculously bloated with rules, exceptions, special favors for special interests, bureaucracy, government winner-picking and other distortion of the economy, and therefore are insanely expensive to implement.

In other words, Americans have to PAY billions of dollars, in time and actual cash, to deal with the complexity it adds to the tax code.

Unlike the Reagan tax cuts, that may actually have saved taxpayers even more in compliance cost than in taxes reduced, the Bush tax cuts were estimated to add up to $114 billion per year in compliance cost, with its maze of tax credits, exemptions, and other economy-distorting favoritism and punishments. This nearly cancelled out the actual “cuts”.

It is estimated that simply complying with the overall income tax costs about $350,000,000,000 every year. That is a little less than ten times as much as the “tax cuts for the rich” that the Liberals are trying to block being extended right now. It is far more than the ENTIRE set of Bush tax cuts being debated now. It is over several times as much as ALL of the cuts, including the Stimulus welfare disguised as “tax cuts” that Obama is demanding be extended as well.

We could let the ENTIRE tax cut package expire…all of the Bush cuts for the “wealthy” AND “middle class”, all of the Obama stimulus “cut” handouts, including in both cases all of the tax credits that give free money to people who don’t pay real income taxes at all…and yet leave the taxpayer with MORE money in their own hands, if:

We simplify the tax code.

We could flatten it, while letting the overall revenue estimate INCREASE to eliminate all of those “cuts”, and people would still save so much that the economy would prosper.

This could be done by eliminating most exemptions, credits, and other economy-distorting favoritism, and reducing the number of tiers of taxpayers.

We should, as any real economist has insisted for at least two decades, implement a flat tax…everyone pay the same tax rate…whatever it takes to match the current income tax revenue. Exempt everyone’s income up to the poverty level, so nobody in poverty has to pay, but leave everyone else paying the EXACT same amount.

This would reduce tax compliance to less than one tenth of its current cost. But let’s imagine it leaves compliance as high as $100 billion dollars per year.

That means we’d save $250 billion next year. Inflating this over ten years the way tax cut estimates usually are, this would “inject” between three and four TRILLION dollars into the economy in the next decade.

We don’t need Bush/Obama “cuts” that cost us more in compliance than they actually save us per year. What we need is a simpler, fairer tax system that we can pay and then get on with our job of creating wealth for ourselves, and therefore the economy.

Hayek Trumps Rothbard: Free Market in Money, not Fiat Gold


ALL VALUE is a “mutually shared illusion” in the marketplace.

What we need is not for a socialist government to force us to all use Fiat Gold, which is what Rothbardian faux-Austrians claim, but instead to have a free market in currency, like Hayek and the real Austrians have long said.

Money is an accounting tool, it has its own intrinsic worth as a means of facilitating and measuring trade and value. If you saddle it with some secondary function and valuation, like forming jewelry and USB connectors, then you end up with an even more unstable economy, as the value of the money becomes less predictable, changing with the supply and demand of that secondary commodity.

This is why we had bigger, worse economic downturns from 1873-1934, on the gold standard, and our best overall period of growth from 1973-2001, when we left Breton Woods and had not yet encountered the massive, Hoover-like growth of government under Bush.

Keynes is Dead, Long Live…Keynes?


Each time a government has tried to spend its way out of a depression, the result has been ongoing economic failure

John Maynard Keynes was an economist…or at least a political activist who used economic-sounding arguments to justify government intervention.

In the 1930s, he was THE economist, if you believed in that government intervention.

But, as we all know, his Theory proved to be a complete failure. It failed to produce results during the Great Depression, but staggered on until the 1970s, when it failed so spectacularly, causing staflation, that it was pronounced dead, even by Liberals in the US and open socialists around the world.

But, unfortunately, George Bush came along in 2001, and after having run as a free marketer, governed as a Keynesian. He infected the political scene with the premise that you could stimulate an economy out of a downturn, by having the government spend massively, even as it increased regulation (in part, by putting strings on the spending). When the economy fell into trouble because of his bad foreign and domestic policies, he responded with Stimulus and Bailout™ packages. That trademark, of course, means that he must pay the Keynes estate a royalty for each mention.

Obama, having run as the Anti-Bush, has committed the perplexing political suicide of simply building on every Bush precedent…most of which really are more Liberal Democrat in tenor, anyway…and one of the symptoms is that he continued the Stimulus and Bailout™ packages.

The problem, as we predicted and is now proving true, is that stimulus spending and bailouts don’t help the economy: They hurt it.

This pattern of behavior has caused what people denying the word Depression call a “double dip recession”, which we’re entering (again) right now.

The only way out, is to end the Keynesian meddling, and let the economy grow on its own. Japan and Sweden learned this the hard way, after each suffering a “lost decade” in the nineties. Now it’s our turn.

Obama Has a Mandate AGAINST Big Government



Bush didn't understand why people didn't like his Big Brotherment style, and Obama doesn't understand why people hate him copying it.

Obama fanatics are all confused and muddled by this anti-government backlash.

They keep saying “but a majority voted for Obama, they must WANT socialized health care”, or Cap and Trade, or Tax the Rich, or whatever.

We had an election, THEY won. This was proof of a mandate for a growing, interventionist government. Obama ran on socialized medicine, redistribution of taxes, environmentalist control of the economy, and he’s trying to do just what he always said he believed in, so:

Everyone should be happy…right?

Well, no.

See:

People were not voting for Obama

Aside from the absolute idiots who voted for or against him because he is half black, or on blind party lines, most people were specifically voting against Bush and McCain. Obama won because he ran on “change”.

And, regardless of any Democratic spin to the contrary, Bush had a Big Government administration. The change people wanted was less government intervention.

Expanding socialized medicine is not Change, it’s Business as Usual. The largest expansion of socialized medicine in US history was Bush’s prescription drug plan.

People voted not for a Che Guevara Wannabe, but against someone who governed like a Hugo Chavez-Wannabe, and his philosophical heir, who promised to be an even bigger advocate of government intervention.

  • They were not saying “we like Obama’s stimulus plan” but “we hate Bush’s stimulus plan, that McCain supports”.
  • Not “we like Obama’s plan to expand war in Afghanistan” but “we hate Bush’s war in Iraq, that McCain wants to extend”.
  • Instead of “we want Obama’s cap and trade proposal” they were saying “we hate McCain’s cap and trade proposal”.
  • People were voting against the Bush/McCain bank bailout, not for Obama’s bank takeover.

What we have gotten, under Obama, is not Change, but four more years of Bush’s philosophy of Big Brotherment.

The people striking out against Obama now are the same people who got Obama elected, voting against Bush by doing something other than voting for McCain, whether by abstaining, voting third party, or actually voting for Obama.

If he wants to save his presidency, Obama needs to realize the TEA Party and town hall speakers are the Obama mandate.

%d bloggers like this: