I don't see the hope, but I can certainly see the change. From Bloomberg:
"U.S. unemployment will surge to 10 percent this year and the budget deficit will be $1.5 trillion next year, both higher than previous Obama administration forecasts because of a recession that was deeper and longer than expected, White House budget chief Peter Orszag said.
Let's recall what Obama said about the stimulus:
If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four.
Oops.
Then he said, "This crisis did not happen solely by some accident of history or normal turn of the business cycle, and we won't get out of it by simply waiting for a better day to come, or relying on the worn-out dogmas of the past." You mean like big government, over-regulation of the economy, and high taxes? So what did Obama do? He went back to FDR and thought Keynesianism would work.
He finished off with this:
"For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
Thanks. Things are much worse, the stimulus didn't stimulate, the tax "cut" wasn't a tax cut, and there has been nothing done to stimulate long term growth, entrepreneurialism, investment, and economic activity.
The government cannot create jobs. The government cannot create wealth. The government cannot create happiness. The statist mantra echoed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and other tyrannical figures cannot be ignored. Increasing government size and control over the choices of individuals translates to increasing danger to individual rights and freedoms. It leads to a reduction in private economic activity and increases the dependency of people on government.
But perhaps that is exactly what Mr. Obama wants...
So the current situation remains as such:
Administration and congressional budget officials expect the unemployment rate, which was 9.4 percent last month, to keep rising. White House officials said the rate likely will rise to 10 percent by the end of 2009, averaging 9.3 percent for the entire year. It will worsen to a 9.8 percent average in 2010, instead of the 7.9 percent estimate in May.
The CBO report also estimates the 2009 jobless rate at 9.3 percent. It puts next year’s average at 10.2 percent.
The OMB raised its deficit projection for fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1, from the $1.26 trillion forecast in May, reflecting slower economic growth this year and next because of “the severity of the crisis in the U.S. and in our trading partners,” said Christina Romer, White House chief economist, who along with Orszag briefed reporters on the report.
The median estimate of 31 economists in a Bloomberg News survey completed Aug. 21 was for a fiscal year 2010 deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Obama is fast turning into Jimmy Carter. Thank goodness for term limits and set elections.
The Strong Conservative Blog
- Strong Conservative
- Toronto
- "People should not fear the government, government should fear the people." - V
2009-08-25
2009-08-24
2009-08-21
A Rising GOP Star
I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Rubio when I worked in the Florida House in 2004-05. He's an intelligent, well spoken, intellectual conservative who very likely has big things ahead. He's currently facing Charlie Crist for the GOP nomination for the FL senate seat recently vacated by Mel (the moderate) Martinez.
I like Rubio, he'd have my vote in a second.
I like Rubio, he'd have my vote in a second.
About Those Death Panels
Much has been made about Sarah Palin's warning of "death panels" being created by the health care reform bill before Congress. While this might have been a stretch, it has certainly changed the course of debate over the issue. This has resulted in a better debate over the true impact of increased government involvement in health care.
It seems undeniable that as government increases its involvement into health care, the choices of individuals will decrease. This is, undeniably, a reduction in freedom. Freedom is, after all, the ability to choose.
So while death panels might not be actually within the bill before Congress, the concept remains valuable for pondering. Being nudged towards making end of life decisions by the government is a worrying thought. Indeed, if bureaucrats are involved in deciding what options remain for those facing terminal illness, one can't help but think of the Post Office (as the President reminded us) or the DMV. Death panels might be a preferable option over a faceless bureaucrat who decides what government will pay for and what it won't. At least one could hope that a panel could be persuaded to extend care and treatment by appealing to their compassion and humanitarian tendencies.
A backroom bureaucrat would be, to me, far more frightening than a death panel. What review, appeal, or reconsideration would exist by a bureaucratic body deciding what a "public option" will provide treatment for and what it won't. And so we can turn to the NHS is Britain which routinely decides that the elderly, terminally ill, and infirm are not worth the cost of such life saving treatments. It is the faceless bureaucrats who, in my opinion, are far more to be feared than any such "death panelist".
Once the arm of government extends to health care, a fundamental regression of individual rights takes place. Think of Canada, where it is against the law to seek additional care at personal expense within the country. If you're lucky enough to live near the border, you can venture to the US and get exceptional treatment, albeit at exceptional cost most often. But how can a free society tolerate denying the option to those who desire to spend their own money to preserve, prolong, or enhance their life? The danger of government intrusion is that a unseen, unknown government worker (who often has benefits a private sector employee could only dream of) engages in decisions that deny choice to individuals. This is the very antithesis of individual liberty.
Milton Friedman said, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." He also recognized that: "The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem." Indeed.
It seems undeniable that as government increases its involvement into health care, the choices of individuals will decrease. This is, undeniably, a reduction in freedom. Freedom is, after all, the ability to choose.
So while death panels might not be actually within the bill before Congress, the concept remains valuable for pondering. Being nudged towards making end of life decisions by the government is a worrying thought. Indeed, if bureaucrats are involved in deciding what options remain for those facing terminal illness, one can't help but think of the Post Office (as the President reminded us) or the DMV. Death panels might be a preferable option over a faceless bureaucrat who decides what government will pay for and what it won't. At least one could hope that a panel could be persuaded to extend care and treatment by appealing to their compassion and humanitarian tendencies.
A backroom bureaucrat would be, to me, far more frightening than a death panel. What review, appeal, or reconsideration would exist by a bureaucratic body deciding what a "public option" will provide treatment for and what it won't. And so we can turn to the NHS is Britain which routinely decides that the elderly, terminally ill, and infirm are not worth the cost of such life saving treatments. It is the faceless bureaucrats who, in my opinion, are far more to be feared than any such "death panelist".
Once the arm of government extends to health care, a fundamental regression of individual rights takes place. Think of Canada, where it is against the law to seek additional care at personal expense within the country. If you're lucky enough to live near the border, you can venture to the US and get exceptional treatment, albeit at exceptional cost most often. But how can a free society tolerate denying the option to those who desire to spend their own money to preserve, prolong, or enhance their life? The danger of government intrusion is that a unseen, unknown government worker (who often has benefits a private sector employee could only dream of) engages in decisions that deny choice to individuals. This is the very antithesis of individual liberty.
Milton Friedman said, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." He also recognized that: "The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem." Indeed.
2009-08-20
2009-08-13
John Edwards, Father of Rielle Hunter's Baby
Every political party has it's yahoo's who have affairs with Argentinian lovers, engage in shenanigans in airport washrooms, kill their dates by driving into rivers, and of course, impregnate "consultants" working for their campaigns. John Edwards is soon to admit that he is, in fact, the father of Rielle Hunter's love child.
Edwards initially denied the affair, then he admitted it. He also denied being the father and said he'd gladly take a paternity test, but now as a grand jury investigation looms it appears he'll reverse course yet again.
The blue collar family man fighting for the little guy isn't the man he portrayed himself to be. But then again, he is human and prone to making mistakes like the rest of us. Edwards is not miles worse than the average shlub who cheats on his wife, but he certainly displays a narcissism that rivals that of the Kennedy and Clinton family.
But the worst may be yet to come for Edwards. He may be indicted for illegally using campaign contributions to "pay off" Hunter, or something of that nature. "Hunter apparently agreed to testify to a federal grand jury investigating whether Edwards broke campaign finance law by paying "hush" money to Hunter and another aide who claimed paternity of the child. Hunter was spotted last week in Raleigh, N.C., entering a federal courthouse, where she spent nine hours."
Ouch. Perhaps the worst part is that Edwards was confronted about his behaviour by key staff members for his presidential campaign but refused to back out. This man was willing to go into an election with this bomb-shell waiting to go off. Had that occurred, he would have doomed his party's chances to winning the White House. That is serious arrogance and pride.
As the good book says, "Pride cometh before destruction...". Maybe he can redeem himself somewhat by being a good father to his new found baby, and to his children from his first wife. He certainly has the money to make a significant effort.
Edwards initially denied the affair, then he admitted it. He also denied being the father and said he'd gladly take a paternity test, but now as a grand jury investigation looms it appears he'll reverse course yet again.
The blue collar family man fighting for the little guy isn't the man he portrayed himself to be. But then again, he is human and prone to making mistakes like the rest of us. Edwards is not miles worse than the average shlub who cheats on his wife, but he certainly displays a narcissism that rivals that of the Kennedy and Clinton family.
But the worst may be yet to come for Edwards. He may be indicted for illegally using campaign contributions to "pay off" Hunter, or something of that nature. "Hunter apparently agreed to testify to a federal grand jury investigating whether Edwards broke campaign finance law by paying "hush" money to Hunter and another aide who claimed paternity of the child. Hunter was spotted last week in Raleigh, N.C., entering a federal courthouse, where she spent nine hours."
Ouch. Perhaps the worst part is that Edwards was confronted about his behaviour by key staff members for his presidential campaign but refused to back out. This man was willing to go into an election with this bomb-shell waiting to go off. Had that occurred, he would have doomed his party's chances to winning the White House. That is serious arrogance and pride.
As the good book says, "Pride cometh before destruction...". Maybe he can redeem himself somewhat by being a good father to his new found baby, and to his children from his first wife. He certainly has the money to make a significant effort.
[ps as of 9:30pm EST, CNN is still not reporting the news, what a shock]
2009-08-11
Obama's Health Care Plan Isn't About Health Care
The President is eager to pass the health care bill, but he seems incredibly divorced as to the substance of the bill itself. The thousand page monster is, like every major bill since January, loaded with pork and special programs to benefit Democratic-friendly interest groups like Planned Parenthood and unions. The point isn't passing a bill that insures the uninsured, the point is to pass a new giant government program.
The difference is that the program will eventually usurp 1/6th of the American economy and suck into the public sector where it will never again be relinquished to market forces. Obama's health care plan is, as Mark Steyn has so accurately pointed out, about changing the fundamental relationship between the citizen and government. Once the line has been crossed where people are dependent on government for health, an eternal nanny-state relationship has inevitably been established. Obama promised to re-make America, and his revisions will change America forever if they succeed. However, his changes will also be incredibly un-American.
That may seem like a strong statement, but considering that America was founded upon the principle of limited government to maximize individual liberty, it is an accurate statement. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison never could have imagined such a gargantuan intrusion into the daily lives of Americans as Obama is now proposing.
Social programs tend to socialize civilizations (shocking I know), but socializing into communities, groups, and collectives rather than as individuals. Doing the best for the common good sounds admirable, but consider that every tyranny since Nero has justified its actions for the "common good". The Nazis justified sterilization, genocide, and war on the common good of the German people. The result was that individuals suffered. The Communists in China justified economic and cultural advancement through the Great Leap Forward which resulted in the deaths of up to 40 million individuals. The Soviets justified collectivized farming, the Gulags, purges, and state terror for the collective good. The result was that millions of individuals died in work camps, disappeared in the night, or were starved to death.
When the individual ceases being paramount in a "free" society, it is inevitable that tyranny grows to justify doing what is best for "the common good". Freedom isn't the easiest solution, in fact it is much harder than relying on government for everything. Freedom has costs and it requires more work. It doesn't always guarantee a sweet easy life, but reality dictates that it is never easy.
Freedom guarantees choice, in fact, freedom is choice. Tyranny is absence of choice, it is coercion. If choice in health care is removed from the American people, it will be another coercive force in society and a major reduction in individual freedom. It might be easier, it might reduce misery to some extent, but it will make America less free and bring her a step further away from her true self.
Witness the tattle-tale program that is strikingly Orwellian in nature that the Administration has begun to ensure that the "truth" is put forward on the health care plan. The President is encouraging citizens to rat on each other for the benefit of his partisan program. The Nazis and Soviets had programs to ensure that enemies of the state were taken care of, so to speak. While there are no Gulags in America, Obama's rat-program is a massive step away from transparency, freedom of speech, and the government's proper role in society.
Those who oppose this health care plan should be making the point that the real issue is freedom. The real issue is choice, and the right to be free from government coercion on matters of health. The government already forces you to pay into a gigantic and disastrous pension plan, it forces to pay for programs you disagree with, it forces you to buy certain light bulbs, it forces you to use certain types of energy, it forces you to hand over your income when you've died even though you've already paid taxes on it throughout your whole life.
The argument now is whether government should step further into the lives of individuals to remove yet another choice from them: what they want to do or not do for their health. The issue is freedom and if government takes over health care choices, there will be no turning back. Only revolution will change it.
The difference is that the program will eventually usurp 1/6th of the American economy and suck into the public sector where it will never again be relinquished to market forces. Obama's health care plan is, as Mark Steyn has so accurately pointed out, about changing the fundamental relationship between the citizen and government. Once the line has been crossed where people are dependent on government for health, an eternal nanny-state relationship has inevitably been established. Obama promised to re-make America, and his revisions will change America forever if they succeed. However, his changes will also be incredibly un-American.
That may seem like a strong statement, but considering that America was founded upon the principle of limited government to maximize individual liberty, it is an accurate statement. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Madison never could have imagined such a gargantuan intrusion into the daily lives of Americans as Obama is now proposing.
Social programs tend to socialize civilizations (shocking I know), but socializing into communities, groups, and collectives rather than as individuals. Doing the best for the common good sounds admirable, but consider that every tyranny since Nero has justified its actions for the "common good". The Nazis justified sterilization, genocide, and war on the common good of the German people. The result was that individuals suffered. The Communists in China justified economic and cultural advancement through the Great Leap Forward which resulted in the deaths of up to 40 million individuals. The Soviets justified collectivized farming, the Gulags, purges, and state terror for the collective good. The result was that millions of individuals died in work camps, disappeared in the night, or were starved to death.
When the individual ceases being paramount in a "free" society, it is inevitable that tyranny grows to justify doing what is best for "the common good". Freedom isn't the easiest solution, in fact it is much harder than relying on government for everything. Freedom has costs and it requires more work. It doesn't always guarantee a sweet easy life, but reality dictates that it is never easy.
Freedom guarantees choice, in fact, freedom is choice. Tyranny is absence of choice, it is coercion. If choice in health care is removed from the American people, it will be another coercive force in society and a major reduction in individual freedom. It might be easier, it might reduce misery to some extent, but it will make America less free and bring her a step further away from her true self.
Witness the tattle-tale program that is strikingly Orwellian in nature that the Administration has begun to ensure that the "truth" is put forward on the health care plan. The President is encouraging citizens to rat on each other for the benefit of his partisan program. The Nazis and Soviets had programs to ensure that enemies of the state were taken care of, so to speak. While there are no Gulags in America, Obama's rat-program is a massive step away from transparency, freedom of speech, and the government's proper role in society.
Those who oppose this health care plan should be making the point that the real issue is freedom. The real issue is choice, and the right to be free from government coercion on matters of health. The government already forces you to pay into a gigantic and disastrous pension plan, it forces to pay for programs you disagree with, it forces you to buy certain light bulbs, it forces you to use certain types of energy, it forces you to hand over your income when you've died even though you've already paid taxes on it throughout your whole life.
The argument now is whether government should step further into the lives of individuals to remove yet another choice from them: what they want to do or not do for their health. The issue is freedom and if government takes over health care choices, there will be no turning back. Only revolution will change it.
2009-08-04
A Picture Says So Much
Everyone knows "a picture says a thousand words", but this one says a lot more than that.Is Obama a joke? Is he handing out money to all like Jack Nicholson's Joker? Is he evil? Is he scheming? Is he sane?
One thing is for sure, President Obama is fast turning into Jimmy Carter's second term, as I predicted (here & here). He has no idea what he's doing, no way to stimulate the economy for real (rather than his community organizations like ACORN). He is about to raise taxes on the most productive and the middle class, he is about to re-vamp the economy by taking over 1/6th of it through the nationalization of health care and permanently change the relationship of the individual to their government.
However, there is hope. Real hope, and not the kind Obama the hopey-changer in chief likes to promise. People are getting word and resisting. The drive by media calls it "interest groups" stirring up "conservatives", but I'd like to think of it as community organizing against socialistic health care. Many congressmen are getting an earful from their constituents, and they'll be getting more as the Obama-Reid-Pelosi cadre forces its agenda on the people. Government should be afraid of the people, not people afraid of the government.
Eat it Bishop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)