France: a case study in socialism's sustainability

Do you love President Obama and all his socialist leaning ways? Do you think it's time for America to abandon capitalism and embrace something more radical?

Why don't you ask a French resident first. Or a French CEO.

Congressional Black Caucus politicking in Cuba

You think the North Korean nuts are demanding attention? I give you the Congressional Black Caucus. No, these black Congressmen are not shooting missiles, but they fly to communist Cuba to cozy up with the Castro brothers. Maybe the socialists and communists are exchanging ideas on how to better their respective countries. I'm waiting on the day that Islamofascists are invited to the meeting too.

Confused moderate-conservatives

Voter's remorse. Is that what David Brooks of the NYT is really saying?

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

Obviously, Brooks is an Obama Kool-Aid drinker, probably getting all his news from fine media outlets like CNN and MSNBC. I'm sure he's a smart gentleman, graduated from University of Chicago and previously worked at several reputable media companies. But even an average American like Joe The Plumber knew Obama's agenda: wealth redistribution and social welfare. Is it really so hard to see through Obama's socialism soul?

And moderate-conservative? Come on, make up your mind. Be a real conservative, or just follow the liberal zombies.

Rising inequalities in America?

Here's more evidence of liberals high on President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget proposal. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post griping about inequalities:

The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.

Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

Dionne and many liberals seem to lack a clear understanding of capitalism. Capitalism works when the individual has the will and opportunities to work hard and accumulate wealth. Everyone can have the same opportunities, but not everyone has the will. Liberals tend to forget this facet and bring in the government as the Great Equalizer. That is socialism, not capitalism.

Capitalism is never fair because there will always be lazy punks who make the wrong decisions and waste their talents. Socialism wants to be fair, but that means taking money from the responsible members of society and feeding it to the lazy punks. No, thanks.

Government, please just stay out of the way. All I want is economic freedom and opportunities to work for my wealth.

Liberals hail the Obama budget

Liberals got their man into the White House. He's spending money like never before, at the same time blaming that he "inherited" the economic troubles. Then he proposes a budget that'll dig a deeper hole for Americans.

But the liberals are ecstatic -- somebody like Robert Reich over at The American Prospect:

It's about time a presidential budget unequivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top one percent have soared for 30 years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, the top-earning one percent of Americans took home eight percent of total income in the 1970s; as recently as 1980, they took home nine percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top one percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top one percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent.

Fairness is at stake but so is the economy as a whole. This Mini Depression is partly the result of a widening gap between what Americans can afford to buy and what Americans, when fully employed, can produce. And that gap is in no small measure due to the widening gap in incomes, since the rich don't devote nearly as large a portion of their incomes to buying things as middle and lower-income people. The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.

Do you notice the brazen endorsement of socialism? During the presidential campaign, Obama lost some points when Joe The Plumber confronted his income redistribution tendencies. But now that the man is at the Oval Office, liberals aren't even embarrassed to write "income redistribution."

Also notice the syndrome of wealth envy. Anytime a person mentions fairness in an economic context, you know you're talking to a liberal. It's not fair, as Mr. Reich points out, that the rich already have most of what they desire. Never mind exploring how much blood and sweat the rich had to pour out, how much sacrifice they had to make, how much failure they had to endure, etc., before becoming wealthy.

The most-taxed nations are the wealthiest?

Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress.com makes the point:

For the record, however, the most-taxed countries on Earth (i.e., the countries where revenue is the highest percent of GDP) are in order:

1. Denmark
2. Sweden
3. Belgium
4. France
5. Norway

In terms of per capita GDP these are, respectively, the 4th, 9th, 14th, 15th, and 3rd richest countries on earth while the United States is 17th. Of course in part that’s an exchange rate phenomenon and if you use PPP adjustments rather than market exchange rates, the U.S. looks better. On the other hand, if you peer into the future it seems to me that exchange rate comparisons are likely to make us look even worse in years to come. The high-tax five also do very well on things like the U.N. Human Development index.

These countries have much less population than the USA. Their governments and people embrace all sorts of social programs. One thing socialism will do is level out the net wealth of the population because the incentive to excel becomes lower. Why bust your butt when most of your money goes to the government to support those who sit on their butts? There's also no argument from me that the folks in those countries are "happier" -- I'd be happy too if the government takes care of me for years, from my birth to my death.

But guess what? These nations aren't the most competitive in the world. Look at the Fortune Global 500 (2008) list. Look at the most recognized commercial brands: Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Toyota, etc. Look at the list of billionaires. Not many from the above listed countries, eh?

High taxes may not adversely affect per capita GDP, but it certainly diminishes the individual's will to exceed expectations and profit personally. In turn that spells trouble for the nation's industries and long-term prospects.

Obama the socialist

Is there still any doubt? Actions speak louder than words, and the 30 days that Obama's sat in the White House he's shown us his far left philosophy in government and taken America a step closer to socialism than ever before.

His mortgage bailout plan is just another entitlement program to redistribute income of the responsible home owners to the irresponsible ones who moved into a house they cannot afford. Per Larry Kudlow, and I agree completely:

Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market.

The creation of Fannie and Freddie was bad enough, and with this proposed mortgage bailout, the government will indeed reward bad behavior. Life is a series of decisions and their consequences. Make good decisions to be rewarded. Choose poorly and suffer the negative consequences. Where in the Constitution does it say for the federal government to bail us out in cases of irresponsible personal decisions? That's all it is. Poor decision making.

Okay, some folks will blame their employers: My company laid me off and now I have no income to pay for mortgage. First of all, why didn't you save money for the "rainy days," an emergency fund? Secondly, you can't possibly expect to live the same lifestyle without regular income, so start Plan B -- move out! Find a cheaper place or become a renter. Don't wait for the government to help you.

Or blame the health care: I got really ill and had to pay for medical expenses, falling behind on mortgage payments. Health care is a high priority. Each paycheck should have some set aside for health care, whether from the employer or other means. If you cannot pay for health care and a house, then you should live in another place or find another job which has better benefits. Again, where's that rainy day fund? Don't wait for the government to take care of you!

To a socialist, the current economic meltdown is the perfect storm to expand government control of citizens' lives. Strike fear in the hearts of certain individuals -- those without the will or perseverance to dig themselves out of a hole -- to achieve control of their lives through more bloated entitlement programs. Let the responsible neighbor tap into his or her emergency fund (or kids' college tuition fund or retirement fund) to indirectly pay for my mistakes in the form of them paying higher taxes.

There are those like Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic who doesn't see it this way, but rather:

The most discouraging surprise of Barack Obama's early days in office, days of emergency, was the new administration's shirking of clarity, its reluctance to attach the grandeur of its initiatives to the grandeur of liberalism. Instead the president's distaste for division, and his Chicago practicality, set the tone. How came it to be that in the aftermath of the greatest liberal victory in our lifetime John Boehner held the stage? Of course the views of the Republicans must be respected, not least when a few of their votes may be needed to do the work of rescue and reform; but political respect must not be confused with intellectual respect. The response of the right to the crisis in America was to flee to its catechism. The Republicans propose to bail out the economy with doctrine. Unemployment is 7.6 percent and rising, and they say: let them eat Friedman. When billions and billions of dollars are needed for the Pentagon (fine with me) and for Wall Street, it is damn the zeroes, full speed ahead--but when the prospect of relief for ordinary Americans in trouble rears its fair and compassionate head, the deficit desperately matters again. The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically. These are the people who would have privatized, that is, destroyed, Social Security: how can their protests not be met vehemently? This vehemence is not "partisanship," it is analysis. It is not "populism," it is liberalism.

Liberals love to bring up "relief for ordinary Americans," as if responsible, financially sound, hard working Americans aren't "ordinary." It's a sad trend that if you are not in credit card debt, pay your mortgage on time, and have no car payment, then you are not ordinary in today's economic categorization. Never mind labeling Republicans as heartless and hypocritical as well, and blaming all the economic problems on conservatives' insistence and embrace of capitalism. Just ask: Which socialist countries thrive to become leaders of the world economy?

Conservatives have long questioned Obama's "change" when he was campaigning: change for the better or for worse? Unfortunately, ever since he entered the White House, most people are predicting the latter: change for worse.

Global economic downturn hurts Chavez's socialist agenda

Tough guy Hugo Chavez doesn't seem so tough anymore now that the global economic downturn and plunge in oil price is hurting his income, and hence his goal of turning Venezuela into a socialist mecca. After having some fun seizing foreign oil company properties and harassing them with tax officials, he's now soliciting bids for these oil companies to come back to drill.

This guy is a nutcase and has no clue as to how to run a country, even one with such vast oil reserves. His hardline socialism is isolating Venezuela and depriving its people of a better future.

Please don't go there: amending the Constitution to include right to health care

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. wants the Constitution amended so that citizens enjoy the right to health care. What's next? The right to employment?

This notion, however attractive, is absurd. The Constitution grants us freedom and capitalism. Those are really the two crucial ingredients to form a sustainable, prosperous society. We live in it. Millions of others leave behind their homelands to come to America. But America is under threat from Big Government and socialistic policies. And guess what? Universal health care is bigger government and socialization.

Legally, health care as a right would spell disaster. What is health care? Besides being treated for illnesses and injuries, what about preventive measures? Would universal health care pay for gym memberships? Doctors and nurses would become government workers, what about gym operators? What about paying for Alcoholics Anonymous sessions? You can see how crazy things could get...

Even if legislators want a nationalized health care plan, amending the Constitution is the wrong way to go about it anyway.