Reply to Comment On Post “Can Texas secede?”

An anonymous someone made the following comments about my post “Can Texas secede.”  My reply follows after:

Interesting thoughts, but your rhetoric is too blinding this time.  “Gang raping” and “black Hitler” are inappropriate terms.

I’ve actually heard that we’re in danger of spending too little to put out this financial fire.  Refer to Japan in the mid- to late-1990’s, for example.

The U.S. has already adapted some aspects of “socialized” (as you like to refer to them) programs, such as social security, medicare, medicare, WIC, etc.  In fact, I think people…could benefit from these programs.

I agree that we, as citizens, should be prudent and censor unnecessary programs and spending.  But I don’t see how inaction can help (i.e., allowing the ‘rational’ invisible hand to take over); I’m also unsure how you’re linking states’ rights into this picture.

My reply:

Perhaps the rhetoric seems too strong to you, but it was carefully chosen.  Congress “gang raping” our Constitution and the free market is appropriate if you consider the term rape to mean “rob of virtue”, and gang to be synonymous with “organized crime”.  “Black Hitler” as a term for Obama is not maligned if you consider Hitler not in a context of hate, but of fear of someone taking extraordinary measures to socialize and nationalize every fiber of this country’s fabric of existence.  And I’m certainly not racist since I admire the blacks like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.  However this “stimulus” package is Obama’s Enabling Act as much as Hitler made use of one.  You have to be pretty naive not to see how this package was designed to force us all to eventually adopt widespread socialist programs such as Universal Health Care

I find it also very telling and alarming that the “stimulus” bill was made available to the public for less than 48 hours before being voted on.  Even many if not most in Congress didn’t have a humanly possible amount of time to realistically read all of the bills many pages:

Like the bailout last fall, this bill has been shoved through Congress faster than you can say “extravagant spending!” 

As to state rights, they are under grave threat from this “stimulus” package.  Ultimately the state’s are our last hope for rebellion against this taxation without representation.  Sure we are a republic and not a democracy.  Sure the elected officials were elected and won their elections.  That doesn’t however give them the right to rob the people in the name of goodwill.  They don’t have the right to do what would be illegal for individuals to do – namely to rob from some and give to others.  Ultimately we need a Constitutional Amendment to limit government spending and restore the correlation of taxation with representation  that was done away with when the 16th Amendment was adopted and subsequently the income tax imposed

(i.e. the states that paid more taxes originally had more say (representation) on how those taxes were to be spent — likewise if your state is paying more taxes and has a say on how they are to be spent, wouldn’t it be more frugal in how those taxes are spent.  On the other hand if no states have direct control over how taxes are spent, then wouldn’t it be in their best self-interests to get the biggest share of the pork barrel?):

Amendment XVII (Ratified April 8, 1913):

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”

Here is an article related to the concern of state’s rights with regards to the “stimulus” package:

As to the the Japanese economic crisis in the 90’s, I don’t know enough yet to weigh in on that.  I’d be wary to learn about it from those that have rewritten history in a liberal light and whose husbands have presidential libraries that scream “ME” such as her high and mighty Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

However I agree that since the government got us into this mess (by buying massive amounts of subprime mortgages – in effect saying that the government would insure grossly irresponsible loans) they should get us out of it.  How?  Not by increasing the size of government drastically.  Not by pie in the sky green energy fantasies (e.g. solar panels on every national park ranger hut).  Not by pork barrel spending on special interest groups at home and abroad (funding for international abortions, funding for more Endowment for the Art’s Urine soaked Crucifixes) and bankrupt states’ dream foundation schemes (bridges to nowhere).   How about the government loosening the coils of the governments’ boa-constrictor hold on the free markets.  Maybe if they lowered the federal taxes on business profits (which ranges from 15% to 35% depending on the amount profit earnings) (up to 35 cents on every dollar of profit!) to much less, business might actually succeed.  Can you imagine if the company you work for or run suddenly had 35 cents extra per dollar of profit to play with in maintaining their top and bottom lines?  Talk about extra slack when times got tough!!!  I know at my job that if our division had an extra 10% to play with from profits that we wouldn’t be worried about job losses this whole year)  The individual states tax profits on top of this — e.g. in New Hampshire its an additional 8.5%:

Likewise windfall profits taxes are really hurting businesses in America.  See:

Likewise foreign companies are less likely to invest here and employ workers in factories and offices here if taxes are excessive.  They’ll just do business elsewhere.  There was all this talk and worry about UAW workers losing their jobs with the downturn in the traditional big American car manufacturers.  Yet many Americans were finding jobs at international auto firms’ factories in the U.S. such as with Toyota.  Sure the pay rates were not like the UAW’s, but who can afford to pay workers in excess of $100 an hour in wages and benefits and stay in business making cars that people can actually afford?

Likewise heavy regulation has been a heavy tax on America.  The FDA’s excessive regulation of pharmaceuticals all but killed the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.  Why did 3M get out of pharmaceuticals in the last few years?  It was simply too expensive to play the game unless you had massive amounts of capital to research a product over the vast number of years the FDA required for approval.  People with serious illnesses willing to take more risks with promising new drugs had to turn to foreign suppliers such as Great Britain, which although very socialist was ironically less restrictive in this regard concerning consumer rights.

Milton Friedman in his book “Free to Choose” also talks about how regulated our trucking industry was via the ICC — the licenses to do interstate commerce via trucking were limited enough that some companies existed that had no trucks or truckers but which sold their licenses to do interstate trucking. 

For more current info on harmful effects of regulation on commerce via trucking see:

The government may have done such a good job at killing the economy, perhaps they have provided the justification for more socialization.  Since private enterprise can’t survive long without special protections and government endowed priviledges in this highly fascistic system of government subsidies and heavy handed regulations, even businesses are clamoring for their share of the redistributed wealth.  And who can blame individuals from wanting more unemployment relief and welfare support from the very power that has made unemployment such a scary thing.  I mean once you take away the former greatest protection to the worker – competition between businesses for good employees, what do you have left but to turn to the only resources left standing – the bloated Unions and government handouts.

And yes the government through the Fed might have had to inject money into the banking system to alleviate the threat of deflation. As Milton Friedman points out in his book “Free to Choose” how the Fed in the Great Depression made the mistake of not injecting enough cash into the banking system that they had messed up in the first place.  The Fed by the way was created under the false alarm that runs on banks could spell disaster.  Yes banks had been run on for cash, but banks in the past had refused to pay cash for periods of time without closing their doors permanently.  As long as the bank was truly solvent (i.e. hadn’t cooked their books), this refusal to issue cash during heavy runs on banks didn’t prevent people from still using their checkbooks to do financial transactions using their still active checking accounts.  The Fed made the perhaps deliberate choice during the Great Depression to withhold needed cash supplies from banks – the money supply actually shrunk!

Speaking of census, you heard about Obama moving the census administration to the white house?  There’s fear that they will cook the books and use estimation methods instead of the traditional head count to sway political district majorities to be more aligned to democrat party wishes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: