Here below are the most popular posts on HHCapitalism.com for the past week:
Bill's Bills May 2014
William Saracino digests the latest legislative mischief emanating from Sacramento.
Taxes, Pfizer and Hostility to Capital Freedom
Extortionists on one side of the Atlantic, protectionists on the other.
California’s Golden Goose Getting Throttled
In case you’ve been asleep for 30 years, California’s economy is not what it used to be.
U.S. Internet Content Censored by Putin?
Unfriendly foreign governments may be able to restrict what content is available not only to their own people, but even to Americans.
Lift the Campaign Finance Restrictions
Surely money is bad for politics? But the attempt to remove money from politics has backfired.
The Unholy Trinity of Public Sector Unions, Environmentalists, and Wall Street
Three unlikely allies create a moral hazard to the fiscal health of the state of California.
Clueless King of TARP Bank Bailouts Trumpets his Record
According to Thomas Freeman of the Wall Street Journal, by Timothy Geithner's own admission, he (Geithner) "didn't see the mortgage crisis coming and didn't grasp the severity of the problems after it occurred."
The Tarnished Brass State
Even liberals are now talking about making California a more friendly place for business... but only for hot and sexy ones. Why don't we dump crony socialism and give breaks to everyone instead?
Post-Obamacare Reform
Obamacare is now a dead letter. Here's what we have to do next.
The Capitalist Bibliography
The Top Ten Easy-to-Read popular expositions on economics and capitalism
The Top Ten Hardcore Scholarly Treatises on economics
The Top Five Most Dangerous Anti-capitalist Rants
Other Books of Interest
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Taxes, Pfizer and Hostility to Capital Freedom
238 years since Adam Smith exploded the myths of beggar-thy-neighbor mercantilism in The Wealth of Nations in the same year as the United States declared independence from Great Britain, and 85 years since the Smoot-Hawley tariff precipitated the Great Crash, protectionists on both sides if the Atlantic are opposing and meddling in free international commerce.
The American drug company Pfizer wants to take over the British firm AstraZeneca. This would make Pfizer a U.K.-based company for tax purposes, effectively escaping an increasingly hostile and extortionist American tax policy. This of course does not please the US tax authorities. How dare Pfizer desert it's patriotic duty to cough up another billion?
Meanwhile, nationalist purists and unions in the UK object to this infusion of capital into their economy, largely because it gives them less control over other people's money. The general population of Britain should see through this phony concern for their well-being.
Read the complete article at The Wall Street Journal.
The American drug company Pfizer wants to take over the British firm AstraZeneca. This would make Pfizer a U.K.-based company for tax purposes, effectively escaping an increasingly hostile and extortionist American tax policy. This of course does not please the US tax authorities. How dare Pfizer desert it's patriotic duty to cough up another billion?
Meanwhile, nationalist purists and unions in the UK object to this infusion of capital into their economy, largely because it gives them less control over other people's money. The general population of Britain should see through this phony concern for their well-being.
Read the complete article at The Wall Street Journal.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Clueless King of TARP Bank Bailouts Trumpets his Record
Timothy Geithner, Regional Federal Reserve President for TARP (2008) and Treasury Secretary 2009-13, is making news waves with his new book and double-down defense of his actions, 'Stress Test'. According to James Freeman of The Wall Street Journal, the man at or near the center of the $800 billion bank bailout had no private-sector finance experience prior to becoming President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.
Also according to Freeman, by Geithner's own admission, he (Geithner) "didn't see the mortgage crisis coming and didn't grasp the severity of the problems after it occurred."
Those of us familiar with Austrian Business Cycle theory, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board circa 2007, could not have seen it more clearly if we were tied to railroad tracks with a locomotive bearing down on us.
To understand what I'm talking about, see: How the Business Cycle Happens, by Murray Rothbard.
[Aside to Rothbard/Rockwell/Ron Paul haters: Get over it. We're not talking foreign policy here.]
To see what Freeman is talking about, see his book review: The Man Who Knew too Little.
For the antidote to TARP bailout apologists, see Thomas Sowell's 'The Housing Boom and Bust' and/or John Allison's 'The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure'.
Also according to Freeman, by Geithner's own admission, he (Geithner) "didn't see the mortgage crisis coming and didn't grasp the severity of the problems after it occurred."
Those of us familiar with Austrian Business Cycle theory, including the Wall Street Journal editorial board circa 2007, could not have seen it more clearly if we were tied to railroad tracks with a locomotive bearing down on us.
To understand what I'm talking about, see: How the Business Cycle Happens, by Murray Rothbard.
[Aside to Rothbard/Rockwell/Ron Paul haters: Get over it. We're not talking foreign policy here.]
To see what Freeman is talking about, see his book review: The Man Who Knew too Little.
For the antidote to TARP bailout apologists, see Thomas Sowell's 'The Housing Boom and Bust' and/or John Allison's 'The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure'.
Good, Bad and Ugly California Legislative Agenda
By William Saracino
[Published in the March 2014 newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men]
The legislative session still being young, the usual plethora of mutant legislation has not yet started its long march through the process. Hence below I offer you another installment of the good, bad and ugly from the political arena.
The Ugly
Legislation co-authored by a dozen Democrats that would extend mandatory pre-K pre-school starting at the age of one. Yes, one, as in 12 months after birth. The Democrats blather on about the need for healthy children, proper nutrition, etc., apparently forgetting that there are people called parents and societal units called families that are supposed to provide these things and in fact do provide these things in the vast majority of cases. Make no mistake about it, this push has nothing to do with the well being of children and everything to do with extending the control of the government over children at as young an age as possible.
The Bad
Dear Leader – that would be Mr. Obama to the Democrats – recently tried to defend his “if you like your doctor you can keep him” lies during his campaign to pass Obamacare. His answer is a classic in double speak, to which I cannot possible do justice. So here is his quote (emphasis added):
“What we have said is, for example, if you’re in the middle of life-saving treatment with a particular doctor, then we will work to make sure that you can keep, uh, that treatment, and not shift. But for the average person, many folks who don’t who don’t have health insurance initially, um, you know, they’re gonna have to make some choices, and, they might end up having to switch doctors, in part because they’re saving money. But that’s true, you know, if, if, your employer suddenly decides: we think this network’s gonna give a better deal, we think this is gonna help keep premiums lower, uh, you gotta use this doctor as opposed to that one, or this hospital as opposed to that one. Uh, the good news is, in most states, people have more than one option. And, you know, what they’ll find, I think is that their doctor, or network, or hospital that’s conveniently located is probably in one of those networks. Now, you may find out that that network’s more expensive than another network. And then you’ve gotta make a choice in terms of what’s right for your family. Do you want to save on cost, or do you want to save on convenience?”
Just like “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.”…right?
The Good
Republicans won a special election for a Florida congressional seat that was widely considered a probably Democrat pick-up. Neutral observers, as well as the spin-doctors in both parties spent the week leading up to the election forecasting a Democrat win…the Democrat spinners crowing and the Republican spinners making in-advance excuses. The Republican won – which is important. Even more important is how he won – but making the repeal of Obamacare the center piece of his campaign, as well as having a concrete, positive proposal to replace Obamacare. Equally important, all GOP factions united to defeat the Democrat instead of take shots at the Republican nominee…an example we can only hope spreads to California.
Over and out for now – hope to see you all at our next meeting so we can discuss these topics and many more.
[Published in the March 2014 newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men]
The legislative session still being young, the usual plethora of mutant legislation has not yet started its long march through the process. Hence below I offer you another installment of the good, bad and ugly from the political arena.
The Ugly
Legislation co-authored by a dozen Democrats that would extend mandatory pre-K pre-school starting at the age of one. Yes, one, as in 12 months after birth. The Democrats blather on about the need for healthy children, proper nutrition, etc., apparently forgetting that there are people called parents and societal units called families that are supposed to provide these things and in fact do provide these things in the vast majority of cases. Make no mistake about it, this push has nothing to do with the well being of children and everything to do with extending the control of the government over children at as young an age as possible.
The Bad
Dear Leader – that would be Mr. Obama to the Democrats – recently tried to defend his “if you like your doctor you can keep him” lies during his campaign to pass Obamacare. His answer is a classic in double speak, to which I cannot possible do justice. So here is his quote (emphasis added):
“What we have said is, for example, if you’re in the middle of life-saving treatment with a particular doctor, then we will work to make sure that you can keep, uh, that treatment, and not shift. But for the average person, many folks who don’t who don’t have health insurance initially, um, you know, they’re gonna have to make some choices, and, they might end up having to switch doctors, in part because they’re saving money. But that’s true, you know, if, if, your employer suddenly decides: we think this network’s gonna give a better deal, we think this is gonna help keep premiums lower, uh, you gotta use this doctor as opposed to that one, or this hospital as opposed to that one. Uh, the good news is, in most states, people have more than one option. And, you know, what they’ll find, I think is that their doctor, or network, or hospital that’s conveniently located is probably in one of those networks. Now, you may find out that that network’s more expensive than another network. And then you’ve gotta make a choice in terms of what’s right for your family. Do you want to save on cost, or do you want to save on convenience?”
Just like “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.”…right?
The Good
Republicans won a special election for a Florida congressional seat that was widely considered a probably Democrat pick-up. Neutral observers, as well as the spin-doctors in both parties spent the week leading up to the election forecasting a Democrat win…the Democrat spinners crowing and the Republican spinners making in-advance excuses. The Republican won – which is important. Even more important is how he won – but making the repeal of Obamacare the center piece of his campaign, as well as having a concrete, positive proposal to replace Obamacare. Equally important, all GOP factions united to defeat the Democrat instead of take shots at the Republican nominee…an example we can only hope spreads to California.
Over and out for now – hope to see you all at our next meeting so we can discuss these topics and many more.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Bill's Bills April 2014
By William Saracino
[Published in the April newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men]
The clown-car known as the California Legislature is picking up steam as Spring advances – with Democrats never losing their zeal to push California ever further down the lists of desirable states in which to live. We are currently at or near the top in tax and and regulation burden on citizens and business, and near the bottom for student performance and business climate. Our Democrats are trying very hard to make things even worse.
SB 935 – Leno – D – San Francisco. Raises the minimum wage $13 an hour – thereby insuring that the first rung of the job ladder is even more inaccessible to young people entering the work force.
AB 1897 (Hernández; D-West Covina). Unfairly imposes liability on a general contractor entity for the a sub- contractor’s wage and hour violations, lack of worker’s compensation coverage, and/or failure to remit employee contributions. Penalties can be applied to the general contractor without any evidence that the contracting entity controlled the working conditions or wages of the sub-contractor’s employees.
AB 2416 (Stone; D-Scotts Valley). Creates a dangerous and unfair precedent in the wage and hour arena by allowing employees to file liens on an employer’s real or personal property, or property where work was performed, based upon allegations only, without having to wait for proof that violations exist.
SB 1188 (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara). Significantly increases product defect litigation and associated claims by allowing consumers to pursue claims after the warranty has expired for “material” omissions regarding the product that are unrelated to any health and safety concerns.
SB 404 (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara).Makes it virtually impossible for employers to manage their employees and exposes them to a higher risk of litigation by expanding the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include a protected classification for any person who is, perceived to be, or associated with an individual who provides medical or supervisory care to a listed family member.
ACA 3 (Campos; D-San Jose) Lowers Vote Requirement for Tax Increases — Adds complexity and uncertainty to the current tax structure and pressure to increase taxes on commercial, industrial and residential property owners by giving local governments new authority to enact special taxes, including parcel taxes, by lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to fifty-five percent.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg – is it any wonder business’s are leaving California in droves? YOU have the power to help stop this nonsense – become an active member of the Southern California Republican Women and Men and help elect more republicans this November!
[Published in the April newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men]
The clown-car known as the California Legislature is picking up steam as Spring advances – with Democrats never losing their zeal to push California ever further down the lists of desirable states in which to live. We are currently at or near the top in tax and and regulation burden on citizens and business, and near the bottom for student performance and business climate. Our Democrats are trying very hard to make things even worse.
SB 935 – Leno – D – San Francisco. Raises the minimum wage $13 an hour – thereby insuring that the first rung of the job ladder is even more inaccessible to young people entering the work force.
AB 1897 (Hernández; D-West Covina). Unfairly imposes liability on a general contractor entity for the a sub- contractor’s wage and hour violations, lack of worker’s compensation coverage, and/or failure to remit employee contributions. Penalties can be applied to the general contractor without any evidence that the contracting entity controlled the working conditions or wages of the sub-contractor’s employees.
AB 2416 (Stone; D-Scotts Valley). Creates a dangerous and unfair precedent in the wage and hour arena by allowing employees to file liens on an employer’s real or personal property, or property where work was performed, based upon allegations only, without having to wait for proof that violations exist.
SB 1188 (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara). Significantly increases product defect litigation and associated claims by allowing consumers to pursue claims after the warranty has expired for “material” omissions regarding the product that are unrelated to any health and safety concerns.
SB 404 (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara).Makes it virtually impossible for employers to manage their employees and exposes them to a higher risk of litigation by expanding the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include a protected classification for any person who is, perceived to be, or associated with an individual who provides medical or supervisory care to a listed family member.
ACA 3 (Campos; D-San Jose) Lowers Vote Requirement for Tax Increases — Adds complexity and uncertainty to the current tax structure and pressure to increase taxes on commercial, industrial and residential property owners by giving local governments new authority to enact special taxes, including parcel taxes, by lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to fifty-five percent.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg – is it any wonder business’s are leaving California in droves? YOU have the power to help stop this nonsense – become an active member of the Southern California Republican Women and Men and help elect more republicans this November!
U.S. Internet Content Censored by Putin?
Last month we noted here that traffic to this site from Ukraine, which for years had been second only to that from the United States, had fallen off precipitously. (See Iron Firewall Descends on Ukraine).
Now Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal describes the brave new world we will be entering if the Obama administration's plan to cede control of the basic address book of the Internet to foreign governments is allowed to go through. Unfriendly foreign governments may be able to restrict what content is available not only to their own people, but even to Americans.
Vladimir Putin has already seized control of the domains within his empire, requiring registration, licensing and censorship compliance for all sites of any significance. He would love to extend the reach of that control.
Will we surrender that easily?
Read the complete article at The Wall Street Journal.
Now Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal describes the brave new world we will be entering if the Obama administration's plan to cede control of the basic address book of the Internet to foreign governments is allowed to go through. Unfriendly foreign governments may be able to restrict what content is available not only to their own people, but even to Americans.
Vladimir Putin has already seized control of the domains within his empire, requiring registration, licensing and censorship compliance for all sites of any significance. He would love to extend the reach of that control.
Will we surrender that easily?
Read the complete article at The Wall Street Journal.
Bill's Bills May 2014
By William Saracino
[Published in the May newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men]
Ah yes, it’s springtime and a young man’s fancy turns to…well…it’s baseball in the old saying, but if the young man – or woman – is a Democrat legislator in California their fancy turns to running our once golden state further into the ground. The imagination of liberals in Sacramento on ways to destroy our state is amazing. Here for your dining and dancing pleasure are a few recent examples.
SB 1021 by Wolk of Davis. The “split roll” concept – allowing local governments to tax “business property” at a higher rate than residential. Definitions are loose of what is and isn’t business or residential, and the bill allows double tax increases by permitting both a parcel tax based upon use as well as a parcel tax based upon square footage, thereby allowing a district to impose layers of taxes. Should be titled the “run even more business out of California” act.
AB 2416 by Stone of Scotts Valley. This bill would cripple California businesses by allowing any employee, governmental agency, or anyone “authorized by the employee to act on the employee’s behalf” to record super priority liens on an employer’s real property or any property where an employee “performed work” for an alleged, yet unproven, wage claim.This bill would severely disrupt commercial and personal real estate markets in this state as AB 2416 would allow a wage lien to take precedence over almost all other liens or judgments.
SB 1381 by Evans of Santa Rosa forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution and recordkeeping for genetically engineered food products sold in California, adding significantly to the cost of food for Californians. The bill also includes a private right of action, (also known as the “bounty hunter provision”) which further raises the specter of liability issues, adding to the cost of compliance for farmers, grocers and food manufacturers.
The bounty hunter lawsuit provision in SB 1381 will allow trial lawyers to file predatory lawsuits against family farmers, small grocery stores, food producers and practically everyone associated with the food distribution chain. This provision closely mirrors Proposition 65, which spawned numerous lawsuits that resulted mostly in settlements benefiting litigators. There is no reason to think that the same thing won’t happen again under SB 1381. Bounty hunter provisions cost the business community millions of dollars defending baseless suits when those resources would be better spent on research and development, expansions and employee compensation or benefits.
Whatever your view of GMO, California citizens already decided this issue when they voted to reject Proposition 37 in 2012. That proposition was very similar in content and intent to SB 1381.
And getting away from the bill mill for a moment, you may have noticed a lot of happy talk recently about California’s fiscal situation. The smiles were brought on by a “balanced budget”. Unmentioned is that the budget is “balanced” by borrowing $500 million from a “cap and trade” carbon reduction special fund. Sort of like “balancing” your VISA card debt by paying it with your Mastercard.
Take a look behind the happy talk and you'll see a $330 billion skyline of other liabilities threatening the state's financial health. It includes $80 billion needed to cover teachers' pensions and $64 billion to pay for state workers' health care in retirement -- two particularly troublesome liabilities because the state isn't even making the minimum payments
As a result -- similar to the debt of a homeowner who fails to make regular mortgage payments -- California's liabilities keep growing. For example, the money needed to fully fund the California State Teachers' Retirement System balloons by $22 million a day, or about $8 billion a year, financial analysts estimate.
According to the non—patisan Legislative Analysts Office, the state should first address the $80 billion shortfall in the teachers' retirement system, a debt that could cost the state, teachers and school districts a combined $5 billion a year to resolve over 30 years. Without changes, the system serving 868,000 members is projected to run out of money by 2046.
Paying down the $64.6 billion shortfall in health benefits for 277,000 retired state employees and their dependents should come next. That could cost the state $1.8 billion a year over 30 years, the analyst said, but getting started sooner would dramatically reduce costs over the long run.
Pardon me boy, is that the Jerry Brown Choo Choo? According to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the estimated cost of building the 114-mile “bullet-train” route linking Fresno and Bakersfield has gone up $940 million — from $6.19 billion to $7.13 billion. That’s worrisome enough. But what makes it worse is that state officials allegedly didn’t want this 15 percent increase to be made public. I know that shocks you as much as it did me…ahem.
URS Corp. — the San Francisco engineering firm hired to determine the updated cost — reportedly complained in March that it had been “instructed” by the authority to have its numbers be in line with what was projected in the bullet train’s 2012 business plan. URS refused in a carefully worded message that clearly implied the authority wanted it to violate state ethical guidelines for licensed professionals.
Authority officials deny wrongdoing. But after years of deceptive projections and misleading rhetoric, it’s easy to believe they would pressure a consultant to avoid an embarrassing headline.
Are you angry enough now? Well don’t just sit there and stew – come to the next SCRWM meeting and find out how to elect more Republicans to the legislature and end this nonsense. See you there!
[Published in the May newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men]
Ah yes, it’s springtime and a young man’s fancy turns to…well…it’s baseball in the old saying, but if the young man – or woman – is a Democrat legislator in California their fancy turns to running our once golden state further into the ground. The imagination of liberals in Sacramento on ways to destroy our state is amazing. Here for your dining and dancing pleasure are a few recent examples.
SB 1021 by Wolk of Davis. The “split roll” concept – allowing local governments to tax “business property” at a higher rate than residential. Definitions are loose of what is and isn’t business or residential, and the bill allows double tax increases by permitting both a parcel tax based upon use as well as a parcel tax based upon square footage, thereby allowing a district to impose layers of taxes. Should be titled the “run even more business out of California” act.
AB 2416 by Stone of Scotts Valley. This bill would cripple California businesses by allowing any employee, governmental agency, or anyone “authorized by the employee to act on the employee’s behalf” to record super priority liens on an employer’s real property or any property where an employee “performed work” for an alleged, yet unproven, wage claim.This bill would severely disrupt commercial and personal real estate markets in this state as AB 2416 would allow a wage lien to take precedence over almost all other liens or judgments.
SB 1381 by Evans of Santa Rosa forces farmers and food companies to implement costly new labeling, packaging, distribution and recordkeeping for genetically engineered food products sold in California, adding significantly to the cost of food for Californians. The bill also includes a private right of action, (also known as the “bounty hunter provision”) which further raises the specter of liability issues, adding to the cost of compliance for farmers, grocers and food manufacturers.
The bounty hunter lawsuit provision in SB 1381 will allow trial lawyers to file predatory lawsuits against family farmers, small grocery stores, food producers and practically everyone associated with the food distribution chain. This provision closely mirrors Proposition 65, which spawned numerous lawsuits that resulted mostly in settlements benefiting litigators. There is no reason to think that the same thing won’t happen again under SB 1381. Bounty hunter provisions cost the business community millions of dollars defending baseless suits when those resources would be better spent on research and development, expansions and employee compensation or benefits.
Whatever your view of GMO, California citizens already decided this issue when they voted to reject Proposition 37 in 2012. That proposition was very similar in content and intent to SB 1381.
And getting away from the bill mill for a moment, you may have noticed a lot of happy talk recently about California’s fiscal situation. The smiles were brought on by a “balanced budget”. Unmentioned is that the budget is “balanced” by borrowing $500 million from a “cap and trade” carbon reduction special fund. Sort of like “balancing” your VISA card debt by paying it with your Mastercard.
Take a look behind the happy talk and you'll see a $330 billion skyline of other liabilities threatening the state's financial health. It includes $80 billion needed to cover teachers' pensions and $64 billion to pay for state workers' health care in retirement -- two particularly troublesome liabilities because the state isn't even making the minimum payments
As a result -- similar to the debt of a homeowner who fails to make regular mortgage payments -- California's liabilities keep growing. For example, the money needed to fully fund the California State Teachers' Retirement System balloons by $22 million a day, or about $8 billion a year, financial analysts estimate.
According to the non—patisan Legislative Analysts Office, the state should first address the $80 billion shortfall in the teachers' retirement system, a debt that could cost the state, teachers and school districts a combined $5 billion a year to resolve over 30 years. Without changes, the system serving 868,000 members is projected to run out of money by 2046.
Paying down the $64.6 billion shortfall in health benefits for 277,000 retired state employees and their dependents should come next. That could cost the state $1.8 billion a year over 30 years, the analyst said, but getting started sooner would dramatically reduce costs over the long run.
Pardon me boy, is that the Jerry Brown Choo Choo? According to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the estimated cost of building the 114-mile “bullet-train” route linking Fresno and Bakersfield has gone up $940 million — from $6.19 billion to $7.13 billion. That’s worrisome enough. But what makes it worse is that state officials allegedly didn’t want this 15 percent increase to be made public. I know that shocks you as much as it did me…ahem.
URS Corp. — the San Francisco engineering firm hired to determine the updated cost — reportedly complained in March that it had been “instructed” by the authority to have its numbers be in line with what was projected in the bullet train’s 2012 business plan. URS refused in a carefully worded message that clearly implied the authority wanted it to violate state ethical guidelines for licensed professionals.
Authority officials deny wrongdoing. But after years of deceptive projections and misleading rhetoric, it’s easy to believe they would pressure a consultant to avoid an embarrassing headline.
Are you angry enough now? Well don’t just sit there and stew – come to the next SCRWM meeting and find out how to elect more Republicans to the legislature and end this nonsense. See you there!
California’s Golden Goose Getting Throttled
[Published in the May newsletter of the Southern California Rebublican Women and Men as the 'President’s Message']
We are honored to have as our featured speaker for May 24 Stephen Frank, political consultant and editor of California Political News and Views (CAPoliticalNews.com).
As our once Golden state continues to bleed entrepreneurs, productive citizens, large businesses like Toyota and small businesses too numerous to count, Frank is one of the courageous and persistent individuals who keep us informed and educated in ways not otherwise available. As is stated on the About page of the site: ‘The purpose of the CPNV is to provide information the mainstream media either downplays, misleads or denies existing.’
In case you’ve been asleep for 30 years, California’s economy is not what it used to be. A generation ago, California had the sixth most productive economy in the world as compared to other nation states. That position has slipped to ninth, and for anyone with an inkling of knowledge of economics and the indispensibility of free markets, it’s not difficult to understand why.
California state income taxes are the highest in the nation, topping out at 13.3% (on top of federal income tax rates). After income is earned, it is taxed at the checkout stand with sales taxes ranging from 7.5% to 10%. The corporate income tax rate – 8.84% -- is the 5th highest in the nation, while the $800/year business tax, imposed without regard to profits or losses, kills companies in their cradles. Professional atheletes such as DeMarcus Cousins of the NBA comtemplate the half-million extra tax dollars it costs him every year to play for a California team instead of being traded – or moving the whole team – somewhere else, say, Seattle.
That’s the tip of the tax iceberg. Here’s a tip of the results iceberg: Golfers Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson bug out. Bank of America and Wells Fargo lay off California workers. Mattel ships 100 jobs from El Segundo to New York. Campbell Soup closes its oldest facility in the country and shifts production to North Carolina, Ohio and … drumroll please … Texas. Boeing announces it is laying off 1,000 workers at its Long Beach facility in 2015. Apple Inc. expands domestic manufacturing…everywhere but California. Raytheon pulls out of El Segundo for…Texas.
Not all businesses are leaving for other states. Superior Industries of the San Fernando Valley relocated to Chihuahua Mexico. Apparently a nation under siege from drug cartel wars is a more hospitable place for business than California. Low hourly wages alone cannot explain dumping some of the most productive workers in the world; the excessive costs of employing Californians over and above their wages and salaries has to be recognized.
In all, between 2011 and 2012 Bloomberg estimates a loss of 73,000 businesses in California, a 5.2% drop. The tax and regulatory environment has not improved since then, so there’s little reason to expect change for the better.
All these businesses leaving California leaves California with one of the highest unemployment and poverty rates in a nation with an already abysmal average, thanks to the most anemic recovery in 50 years fostered by unprecedented hostility to wealth creation and entrepreneurship emanating from our nation’s capital. The unemployment rate might be higher except that thousands of productive, employable people are leaving the state along with those thousands of businesses, for greater opportunity elsewhere.
And the taxes keep coming. Proposition 30, Assembly Bills (AB) 8 and 241, and Senate bills 622, 782, 768 and many more (see Bill’s Bills) continue to pile taxes upon taxes.
Oh, and did I mention public employee pension liabilities, the budget deficit, and our children and future citizens held hostage to the most powerful syndicate in the state? Sorry, I’m out of room here.
So are we doomed?
We still have Proposition 13, in letter and in spirit. And there is growing opposition to increased taxes in places that are not Republican strongholds. Richmond is 26% black and voted 67% against Proposition 30, as did 77% of the residents of El Monte, which is 69% Hispanic. Proposition A was defeated in the City of Los Angeles.
These are the small seeds we have to cultivate, which points up our failing and our challenge as Republicans: to reach out and recruit beyond our traditional base into the evolving demographics of our once and future great state.
We are honored to have as our featured speaker for May 24 Stephen Frank, political consultant and editor of California Political News and Views (CAPoliticalNews.com).
As our once Golden state continues to bleed entrepreneurs, productive citizens, large businesses like Toyota and small businesses too numerous to count, Frank is one of the courageous and persistent individuals who keep us informed and educated in ways not otherwise available. As is stated on the About page of the site: ‘The purpose of the CPNV is to provide information the mainstream media either downplays, misleads or denies existing.’
In case you’ve been asleep for 30 years, California’s economy is not what it used to be. A generation ago, California had the sixth most productive economy in the world as compared to other nation states. That position has slipped to ninth, and for anyone with an inkling of knowledge of economics and the indispensibility of free markets, it’s not difficult to understand why.
California state income taxes are the highest in the nation, topping out at 13.3% (on top of federal income tax rates). After income is earned, it is taxed at the checkout stand with sales taxes ranging from 7.5% to 10%. The corporate income tax rate – 8.84% -- is the 5th highest in the nation, while the $800/year business tax, imposed without regard to profits or losses, kills companies in their cradles. Professional atheletes such as DeMarcus Cousins of the NBA comtemplate the half-million extra tax dollars it costs him every year to play for a California team instead of being traded – or moving the whole team – somewhere else, say, Seattle.
That’s the tip of the tax iceberg. Here’s a tip of the results iceberg: Golfers Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson bug out. Bank of America and Wells Fargo lay off California workers. Mattel ships 100 jobs from El Segundo to New York. Campbell Soup closes its oldest facility in the country and shifts production to North Carolina, Ohio and … drumroll please … Texas. Boeing announces it is laying off 1,000 workers at its Long Beach facility in 2015. Apple Inc. expands domestic manufacturing…everywhere but California. Raytheon pulls out of El Segundo for…Texas.
Not all businesses are leaving for other states. Superior Industries of the San Fernando Valley relocated to Chihuahua Mexico. Apparently a nation under siege from drug cartel wars is a more hospitable place for business than California. Low hourly wages alone cannot explain dumping some of the most productive workers in the world; the excessive costs of employing Californians over and above their wages and salaries has to be recognized.
In all, between 2011 and 2012 Bloomberg estimates a loss of 73,000 businesses in California, a 5.2% drop. The tax and regulatory environment has not improved since then, so there’s little reason to expect change for the better.
All these businesses leaving California leaves California with one of the highest unemployment and poverty rates in a nation with an already abysmal average, thanks to the most anemic recovery in 50 years fostered by unprecedented hostility to wealth creation and entrepreneurship emanating from our nation’s capital. The unemployment rate might be higher except that thousands of productive, employable people are leaving the state along with those thousands of businesses, for greater opportunity elsewhere.
And the taxes keep coming. Proposition 30, Assembly Bills (AB) 8 and 241, and Senate bills 622, 782, 768 and many more (see Bill’s Bills) continue to pile taxes upon taxes.
Oh, and did I mention public employee pension liabilities, the budget deficit, and our children and future citizens held hostage to the most powerful syndicate in the state? Sorry, I’m out of room here.
So are we doomed?
We still have Proposition 13, in letter and in spirit. And there is growing opposition to increased taxes in places that are not Republican strongholds. Richmond is 26% black and voted 67% against Proposition 30, as did 77% of the residents of El Monte, which is 69% Hispanic. Proposition A was defeated in the City of Los Angeles.
These are the small seeds we have to cultivate, which points up our failing and our challenge as Republicans: to reach out and recruit beyond our traditional base into the evolving demographics of our once and future great state.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Lift the Campaign Finance Restrictions
Well-meaning people often support campaign finance law under the tacit acceptance of idea that money is the root of all evil. Such people might be advised to read Ayn Rand's devastating critique of this idea or Howard Hyde's What the Heck IS Money Anyway?.
Some readers may say that that's all well and good for commerce, but surely money is bad for politics. But the attempt to remove money from politics has backfired, producing more corruption, not less. As David Brooks of the New York Times has observed, "campaign finance laws weren’t merely designed to take money out of politics; they were designed to protect incumbents from political defeat" and "There will always be money in politics; it’s a pipe dream to think otherwise."
Now a report by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) details the trends since the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United case of at least 13 states raising limits on campaign contributions. Contrary to some expectations, this is leading to MORE competitive races, GREATER accountability and LESS corruption, particularly as measured by criminal convictions.
Under individual campaign contribution limits, a challenger either has to be independently wealthy or has to have a broad-based donor network in place. The option of getting the backing of a few wealthy individuals is closed to the less affluent and/or less established and connected candidate, regardless of his or her other qualifications for the office. This has not leveled the playing field. Time to reconsider.
Read the complete article at The Wall Street Journal.
Some readers may say that that's all well and good for commerce, but surely money is bad for politics. But the attempt to remove money from politics has backfired, producing more corruption, not less. As David Brooks of the New York Times has observed, "campaign finance laws weren’t merely designed to take money out of politics; they were designed to protect incumbents from political defeat" and "There will always be money in politics; it’s a pipe dream to think otherwise."
Now a report by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) details the trends since the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United case of at least 13 states raising limits on campaign contributions. Contrary to some expectations, this is leading to MORE competitive races, GREATER accountability and LESS corruption, particularly as measured by criminal convictions.
Under individual campaign contribution limits, a challenger either has to be independently wealthy or has to have a broad-based donor network in place. The option of getting the backing of a few wealthy individuals is closed to the less affluent and/or less established and connected candidate, regardless of his or her other qualifications for the office. This has not leveled the playing field. Time to reconsider.
Read the complete article at The Wall Street Journal.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
If Congress Wrote the 10 Commandments
If Congress were charged to write the fundamental laws governing society from a blank slate, it might begin something like the following:
First a committee would be formed. Then subcommittees for each of the 10 vital areas would be spawned. Months of hearings and testimony, debate and arguments would go by until finally one day the first subcommittee would put its proposal on the table: Thou Shalt Not Murder. Immediately, the proposition is declared to be too simplistic (for the lawyers) and too complicated for the average citizen to understand and therefore requiring a transition period to be postponed to some dates in the future, at least past the next election year. Then a rival caucus would begin proposing amendments and addendums (addendi?).
For example, since data clearly show that most men convicted of murder were not beneficiaries of any school breakfast program, it is argued that the bill must include an expansion of a national school breakfast program to ensure adequate nutrition for kids who might otherwise grow up to become murderers. When it is pointed out that many kids do not partake of the school breakfast program because their parents have already fed them at home, and that eating a second breakfast at school is contributing to the national obesity crisis, demands are raised for expansion of the anti-obesity crisis task force, as well as additional funding for school counselors and other unionized staff to monitor every child's caloric intake.
It would be inhumane to enforce a simplistic ban on murder when guns are so cheap and plentiful in legal markets and depictions of violence abound on television and in the movies. So the bill begins to fatten up with additional regulations of firearms and a special role for the federal communications commission, to fine entertainment companies whose audiences are determined to be contain disproportionate numbers of persons at risk of becoming murderers. Quotas are established prohibiting the number of convictions for murder to exceed the percentage of the population represented by the defendant's race, ethnic group, sexual preference or other minority status. No such quotas will apply to registered Republicans of any race, ethnicity or sexual preference.
From there all manner of prohibitions, taxes (that are denied to be taxes for political purposes but which are celebrated as taxes for constitutional purposes), penalties, fines, special exemptions, provisions for the president to alter the law by executive decree or selectively enforce its provisions, generate over 1000 pages of legalese. The original phrase "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is replaced by the much improved: "It shall henceforth be unlawful for one human being of legally responsible status to unlawfully terminate the life of another human being of legally viable status, subject to the terms, conditions and provisions herein contained".
Anyone opposed to the law as written is publicly smeared with the label 'Pro-Murder'.
Then the second subcommittee presents its proposed text: Thou Shalt Not Steal.
First a committee would be formed. Then subcommittees for each of the 10 vital areas would be spawned. Months of hearings and testimony, debate and arguments would go by until finally one day the first subcommittee would put its proposal on the table: Thou Shalt Not Murder. Immediately, the proposition is declared to be too simplistic (for the lawyers) and too complicated for the average citizen to understand and therefore requiring a transition period to be postponed to some dates in the future, at least past the next election year. Then a rival caucus would begin proposing amendments and addendums (addendi?).
For example, since data clearly show that most men convicted of murder were not beneficiaries of any school breakfast program, it is argued that the bill must include an expansion of a national school breakfast program to ensure adequate nutrition for kids who might otherwise grow up to become murderers. When it is pointed out that many kids do not partake of the school breakfast program because their parents have already fed them at home, and that eating a second breakfast at school is contributing to the national obesity crisis, demands are raised for expansion of the anti-obesity crisis task force, as well as additional funding for school counselors and other unionized staff to monitor every child's caloric intake.
It would be inhumane to enforce a simplistic ban on murder when guns are so cheap and plentiful in legal markets and depictions of violence abound on television and in the movies. So the bill begins to fatten up with additional regulations of firearms and a special role for the federal communications commission, to fine entertainment companies whose audiences are determined to be contain disproportionate numbers of persons at risk of becoming murderers. Quotas are established prohibiting the number of convictions for murder to exceed the percentage of the population represented by the defendant's race, ethnic group, sexual preference or other minority status. No such quotas will apply to registered Republicans of any race, ethnicity or sexual preference.
From there all manner of prohibitions, taxes (that are denied to be taxes for political purposes but which are celebrated as taxes for constitutional purposes), penalties, fines, special exemptions, provisions for the president to alter the law by executive decree or selectively enforce its provisions, generate over 1000 pages of legalese. The original phrase "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is replaced by the much improved: "It shall henceforth be unlawful for one human being of legally responsible status to unlawfully terminate the life of another human being of legally viable status, subject to the terms, conditions and provisions herein contained".
Anyone opposed to the law as written is publicly smeared with the label 'Pro-Murder'.
Then the second subcommittee presents its proposed text: Thou Shalt Not Steal.
The Unholy Trinity of Public Sector Unions, Environmentalists, and Wall Street
Ed Ring of Union Watch ('A project of the California Policy Center') writes of the collusion of three unlikely allies creating a moral hazard to the fiscal health of the state of California.
Unions want jobs for their members; fair enough. But environmentalists won't permit any big-ticket public works projects to go through without their approval. In fact, the environmentalists to a degree serve as a check on runaway union demands for budget-busting above-market wages and benefits. But rather than fight the environmentalists, the unions tend to throw their weight behind the projects that the environmentalists prefer, like the Bullet Train to Nowhere and the Delta tunnel.
Meanwhile, Wall Street investment firms get to underwrite the bond issues for the projects that please the environmentalists and the unions, regardless of their impact on less well politically connected Californians, such as the bulk of the taxpayers.
And their buddies the monetary authorities have every incentive to keep the asset bubbles inflated, failing which the bankruptcy of the public employee pension funds would be exposed.
Read the complete article at UnionWatch.org.
Unions want jobs for their members; fair enough. But environmentalists won't permit any big-ticket public works projects to go through without their approval. In fact, the environmentalists to a degree serve as a check on runaway union demands for budget-busting above-market wages and benefits. But rather than fight the environmentalists, the unions tend to throw their weight behind the projects that the environmentalists prefer, like the Bullet Train to Nowhere and the Delta tunnel.
Meanwhile, Wall Street investment firms get to underwrite the bond issues for the projects that please the environmentalists and the unions, regardless of their impact on less well politically connected Californians, such as the bulk of the taxpayers.
And their buddies the monetary authorities have every incentive to keep the asset bubbles inflated, failing which the bankruptcy of the public employee pension funds would be exposed.
Read the complete article at UnionWatch.org.
Friday, May 09, 2014
The Tarnished Brass State
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the folks who brought us and continue to defend Proposition 13, writes of our less-than golden state degenerating into a corrupt, crony-socialist web of privileges and prejudices.
Hot, sexy and 'green' companies and industries like Hollywood, Tesla (electric cars) and SpaceX (privately-funded space travel) are targeted for special subsidies and tax breaks while ordinary businesses like hardware stores and auto shops are left picking up the tab. The moral hazards engendered by this system have claimed, among other 'victims', three state senators under indictment for extracurricular earnings.
Not all unfavored businesses are willing or able to just take it. Toyota is the latest high-profile exodus case, but California has been bleeding entrepreneurs, productive citizens and businesses large and small for years now, leading the nation in decline. From being the sixth most productive economy in the world as measured against other nation states a generation ago, California has dwindled to ninth and may be expect to continue to slip.
Still, perhaps there could be a silver lining. If rank-and-file Democrats like the idea of tax breaks for any reason, how hard should it be to sell the idea of universal tax breaks, a level playing field for all without privilege or prejudice?
Or am I just California dreaming?
Read the complete article at California Political Review.
Hot, sexy and 'green' companies and industries like Hollywood, Tesla (electric cars) and SpaceX (privately-funded space travel) are targeted for special subsidies and tax breaks while ordinary businesses like hardware stores and auto shops are left picking up the tab. The moral hazards engendered by this system have claimed, among other 'victims', three state senators under indictment for extracurricular earnings.
Not all unfavored businesses are willing or able to just take it. Toyota is the latest high-profile exodus case, but California has been bleeding entrepreneurs, productive citizens and businesses large and small for years now, leading the nation in decline. From being the sixth most productive economy in the world as measured against other nation states a generation ago, California has dwindled to ninth and may be expect to continue to slip.
Still, perhaps there could be a silver lining. If rank-and-file Democrats like the idea of tax breaks for any reason, how hard should it be to sell the idea of universal tax breaks, a level playing field for all without privilege or prejudice?
Or am I just California dreaming?
Read the complete article at California Political Review.
Ukraine, Taxes and the IMF
Chriss Street points out a little-discussed dimension of the crisis in Ukraine: taxes imposed by non-democratic foreign entities.
The International Monetary Fund or IMF is not a product of the free market, taking deposits from voluntary customers and lending to private entities on the basis of creditworthiness. Rather, it is a creature of western governments, funded by taxes that fall on individuals involuntarily and lending to governments, i.e. local and regional monopolists of the use of force. Client's eligibility for loans is generally enhanced the worse economic shape the country is in. Loans are made less on the basis of prospects of repayment than in exchange for political influence. Thus while the IMF is not a government agency, much less a democratically accountable one, much less accountable to the citizens of its client states, yet it frequently comes to dictate the fiscal and monetary policies of entire nations.
Does it surprise anyone that such schemes frequently result in outcomes that range from disappointing failure to catastrophic conflict?
Street also documents statistics of Ukraine's regional economic divisions, its endemic corruption and its strategic importance to Russia as a buffer zone against historical adversaries.
Read the complete article at AmericanThinker.com.
The International Monetary Fund or IMF is not a product of the free market, taking deposits from voluntary customers and lending to private entities on the basis of creditworthiness. Rather, it is a creature of western governments, funded by taxes that fall on individuals involuntarily and lending to governments, i.e. local and regional monopolists of the use of force. Client's eligibility for loans is generally enhanced the worse economic shape the country is in. Loans are made less on the basis of prospects of repayment than in exchange for political influence. Thus while the IMF is not a government agency, much less a democratically accountable one, much less accountable to the citizens of its client states, yet it frequently comes to dictate the fiscal and monetary policies of entire nations.
Does it surprise anyone that such schemes frequently result in outcomes that range from disappointing failure to catastrophic conflict?
Street also documents statistics of Ukraine's regional economic divisions, its endemic corruption and its strategic importance to Russia as a buffer zone against historical adversaries.
Read the complete article at AmericanThinker.com.
Sunday, May 04, 2014
Top 10 HHCapitalism.com Posts for the Past 30 Days
Here below are the Top 10 most popular articles viewed on HHCapitalism.com in the past 30 days:
#10: "Why Government Interference in Markets Always Fails"
Few economists have illustrated as plainly and logically as Ludwig von Mises why price controls (and by extension, all types of interventions in free markets) don't work, never achieve their stated goals. For this reason we present here an excerpt from the chapter 'Interventionism' from his book 'Economic Policy'
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2012/11/why-government-interference-in-markets.html
#9: "Health Care a Human Right?"
A moral obligation to help the less fortunate does not justify massive transfers of power and money to a privileged and unaccountable Washington D.C. bureacracy.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/health-care-human-right.html
----------------
See also: "Post-Obamacare Reform"
Obamacare is now a dead letter. Here is a detailed, incremental health care policy reform proposal.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-hyde/post-obamacare-reform/
#8: "Why be a Republican?"
Many people who see clearly the anti-constitutional and socialist path of destruction that our generation’s Democratic Party is taking us down, nonetheless are often reluctant to identify themselves as Republicans, much less get involved in Republican political organizations. Why should they?
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/why-be-republican.html
#7: "Nothing New Under the Sun"
Living in America in 2014 we have a tendency to flatter ourselves into believing that we are so much more sophisticated and intelligent than our forebears because we can download an app to our iPhone, but the truth is that most of our brilliant new original ideas are nothing more than a rehash of things that have been thought of and worked out many times over and in many nations throughout history.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/nothing-new-under-sun.html
#6: "Libertarianism and Republicans"
Is the rise of the international Libertarian movement and the Liberty Caucus a good or bad thing for Americans in general and Republicans in particular? Just what is Libertarianism? Where does it come from? What does it mean?
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/libertarianism-and-republicans.html
----------------
See also: "What is Capitalism?"
A working definition of Capitalism, to counter the popular misconceptions about exploitation of the poor and privileges for the rich.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/08/what-is-capitalism.html
#5: "Takeaways from CPAC"
Highlights from one couple's experience attending the Conservative Political Action Conference, March 6-8 2014
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/takeaways-from-cpac.html
#4: "Campaign Finance Regulation Lightens"
Implications of the April 2 McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision. Nancy Pelosi shrieks "Existential Threat!" Clarence Thomas says the decision didn't go far enough in lifting restrictions on political speech.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/campaign-finance-regulation-lightens.html
#3: "President of Southern California Republican Women and Men"
Incoming 2014 President Howard Hyde delivers his inaugural message to members, guests and newsletter subscribers.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/president-of-southern-california.html
----------------
See also: http://www.FaceBook.com/SCRWM
#2: Iron Firewall Descends on Ukraine
HHCapitalism.com has long been especially popular with readers from Ukraine. But recently traffic from that beleaguered nation has gone silent.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/iron-firewall-descends-on-ukraine.html
#1: "The CPAC Experience"
Top tweets from the Conservative Political Action Conference from the editor.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/the-cpac-experience.html
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click:
#10: "Why Government Interference in Markets Always Fails"
Few economists have illustrated as plainly and logically as Ludwig von Mises why price controls (and by extension, all types of interventions in free markets) don't work, never achieve their stated goals. For this reason we present here an excerpt from the chapter 'Interventionism' from his book 'Economic Policy'
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2012/11/why-government-interference-in-markets.html
#9: "Health Care a Human Right?"
A moral obligation to help the less fortunate does not justify massive transfers of power and money to a privileged and unaccountable Washington D.C. bureacracy.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/health-care-human-right.html
----------------
See also: "Post-Obamacare Reform"
Obamacare is now a dead letter. Here is a detailed, incremental health care policy reform proposal.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-hyde/post-obamacare-reform/
#8: "Why be a Republican?"
Many people who see clearly the anti-constitutional and socialist path of destruction that our generation’s Democratic Party is taking us down, nonetheless are often reluctant to identify themselves as Republicans, much less get involved in Republican political organizations. Why should they?
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/why-be-republican.html
#7: "Nothing New Under the Sun"
Living in America in 2014 we have a tendency to flatter ourselves into believing that we are so much more sophisticated and intelligent than our forebears because we can download an app to our iPhone, but the truth is that most of our brilliant new original ideas are nothing more than a rehash of things that have been thought of and worked out many times over and in many nations throughout history.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/nothing-new-under-sun.html
#6: "Libertarianism and Republicans"
Is the rise of the international Libertarian movement and the Liberty Caucus a good or bad thing for Americans in general and Republicans in particular? Just what is Libertarianism? Where does it come from? What does it mean?
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/libertarianism-and-republicans.html
----------------
See also: "What is Capitalism?"
A working definition of Capitalism, to counter the popular misconceptions about exploitation of the poor and privileges for the rich.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/08/what-is-capitalism.html
#5: "Takeaways from CPAC"
Highlights from one couple's experience attending the Conservative Political Action Conference, March 6-8 2014
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/takeaways-from-cpac.html
#4: "Campaign Finance Regulation Lightens"
Implications of the April 2 McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision. Nancy Pelosi shrieks "Existential Threat!" Clarence Thomas says the decision didn't go far enough in lifting restrictions on political speech.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/campaign-finance-regulation-lightens.html
#3: "President of Southern California Republican Women and Men"
Incoming 2014 President Howard Hyde delivers his inaugural message to members, guests and newsletter subscribers.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/president-of-southern-california.html
----------------
See also: http://www.FaceBook.com/SCRWM
#2: Iron Firewall Descends on Ukraine
HHCapitalism.com has long been especially popular with readers from Ukraine. But recently traffic from that beleaguered nation has gone silent.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/iron-firewall-descends-on-ukraine.html
#1: "The CPAC Experience"
Top tweets from the Conservative Political Action Conference from the editor.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2014/04/the-cpac-experience.html
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click:
Top HHCapitalism.com Posts of All Time
Here below are the Top 9 most popular articles posted on HHCapitalism.com since its inception in 2006:
#9: "Nation Building in Iraq 10 Years On"
How come no one in the Bush administration ever proposed a Capitalist model for Iraq's petroleum industry?
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2013/03/nation-building-in-iraq-10-years-on.html
#8: "Milton Friedman on Socialized Medicine"
With your Obamacare debate, get some wisdom from one of the greatest economists of the 20th century
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2012/07/milton-friedman-on-socialized-medicine.html
#7: "121 Reasons to Reject Obama-Reid-PelosiCare"
Written in 2009 before the PPACA was passed, this pamphlet still encapsulates the essential facts, true today as they were then, about Obamacare: Unnecessary, Destructive, Doomed to Failure.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2009/11/121-reasons-to-reject-obama-reid_29.html
----------------
See also: "Pull the Plug on Obamacare"
100-page common-sense citizen pamphlet on how Obamacare was sold on false premises, is accomplishing the opposite of its advertized promises, and what we should do instead.
http://www.amazon.com/Pull-Plug-Obamacare-Citizen-Pamphlet/dp/0615765939
#6: "Five Steps to Immigration Reform"
A simple, straighforward proposal: Legalize Capitalism, Elevate Citizenship, Liberalize the quotas, Document the Undocumented and Isolate the criminals.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/11/five-steps-to-immigration-reform.html
----------------
See also: "Illegal Immigration, 1806 -2006"
A 200-year review of the American experience with unlawful migration, squatters and the Homestead Act
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/05/illegal-immigration-1806-2006.html
#5: "Why Government Interference in Markets Always Fails"
Few economists have illustrated as plainly and logically as Ludwig von Mises why price controls (and by extension, all types of interventions in free markets) don't work, never achieve their stated goals. For this reason we present here an excerpt from the chapter 'Interventionism' from his book 'Economic Policy'
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2012/11/why-government-interference-in-markets.html
#4: "Nothing To Do About Jobs"
The one thing the government hasn't tried for 3 [now 5] years is to get out of the way.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2011/09/nothing-to-do-about-jobs.html
#3: "Unemployed College Grads of the World, Unite!"
According to Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius, “The labor force participation rates of college graduates have actually fallen by more than those of workers without a high school education…the growth in the absolute number of employed college graduates has been nowhere near enough to offset the increase in the size of the college-educated population.”
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2013/05/unemployed-college-grads-of-world-unite.html
#2: "What is Capitalism?"
A working definition of Capitalism, to counter the popular misconceptions about exploitation of the poor and privileges for the rich.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/08/what-is-capitalism.html
#1: "Books on Capitalism and economics"
A Capitalist Bibliography: The Top Ten Easy-to-Read popular expositions on economics and capitalism; The Top Ten Hardcore Scholarly Treatises on economics; The Top Five Most Dangerous Anti-capitalist Rants; Other Books of Interest
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/05/books-on-capitalism-and-economics.html
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click:
#9: "Nation Building in Iraq 10 Years On"
How come no one in the Bush administration ever proposed a Capitalist model for Iraq's petroleum industry?
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2013/03/nation-building-in-iraq-10-years-on.html
#8: "Milton Friedman on Socialized Medicine"
With your Obamacare debate, get some wisdom from one of the greatest economists of the 20th century
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2012/07/milton-friedman-on-socialized-medicine.html
#7: "121 Reasons to Reject Obama-Reid-PelosiCare"
Written in 2009 before the PPACA was passed, this pamphlet still encapsulates the essential facts, true today as they were then, about Obamacare: Unnecessary, Destructive, Doomed to Failure.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2009/11/121-reasons-to-reject-obama-reid_29.html
----------------
See also: "Pull the Plug on Obamacare"
100-page common-sense citizen pamphlet on how Obamacare was sold on false premises, is accomplishing the opposite of its advertized promises, and what we should do instead.
http://www.amazon.com/Pull-Plug-Obamacare-Citizen-Pamphlet/dp/0615765939
#6: "Five Steps to Immigration Reform"
A simple, straighforward proposal: Legalize Capitalism, Elevate Citizenship, Liberalize the quotas, Document the Undocumented and Isolate the criminals.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/11/five-steps-to-immigration-reform.html
----------------
See also: "Illegal Immigration, 1806 -2006"
A 200-year review of the American experience with unlawful migration, squatters and the Homestead Act
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/05/illegal-immigration-1806-2006.html
#5: "Why Government Interference in Markets Always Fails"
Few economists have illustrated as plainly and logically as Ludwig von Mises why price controls (and by extension, all types of interventions in free markets) don't work, never achieve their stated goals. For this reason we present here an excerpt from the chapter 'Interventionism' from his book 'Economic Policy'
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2012/11/why-government-interference-in-markets.html
#4: "Nothing To Do About Jobs"
The one thing the government hasn't tried for 3 [now 5] years is to get out of the way.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2011/09/nothing-to-do-about-jobs.html
#3: "Unemployed College Grads of the World, Unite!"
According to Goldman Sachs economist Jan Hatzius, “The labor force participation rates of college graduates have actually fallen by more than those of workers without a high school education…the growth in the absolute number of employed college graduates has been nowhere near enough to offset the increase in the size of the college-educated population.”
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2013/05/unemployed-college-grads-of-world-unite.html
#2: "What is Capitalism?"
A working definition of Capitalism, to counter the popular misconceptions about exploitation of the poor and privileges for the rich.
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/08/what-is-capitalism.html
#1: "Books on Capitalism and economics"
A Capitalist Bibliography: The Top Ten Easy-to-Read popular expositions on economics and capitalism; The Top Ten Hardcore Scholarly Treatises on economics; The Top Five Most Dangerous Anti-capitalist Rants; Other Books of Interest
http://www.hhcapitalism.com/2006/05/books-on-capitalism-and-economics.html
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click:
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Libertarianism and Republicans
From Howard Hyde's 'President's Address' to the Southern California Republican Women and Men, April 26 2014:
----------------
Today our meeting competes with the California State Convention of the Young Americans for Liberty at USC and coincidentally, my talk today is about Libertarianism and Republicans. I did not know about that event before I planned my presentation. I don't pretend to know anything in detail about that organization, but I do know something about Libertarianism from my own perspective, and with just enough serendipity today I hope to make a positive contribution to the discussion.
People sometimes ask me if I am a Liberarian, to which I reply, well, yes, I have some libertarian tendencies, but it's not like I have a meth lab in my Winnebago or anything. To clarify, I say that when I am elected President of the United States, Ron Paul will be my Czar in charge of the decommissioning of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Community Reinvestment Act, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Equity and Fairness Reform Act or TEFRA, and the Fed. On the other hand, as it pertains to foreign policy and geo-politics, my nominations for Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretaries of Defense and State are, in no particular order, John Bolton, John Bolton and John Bolton. In the unlikely event that Mr. Bolton is unequal to all three commissions simultaneously, my alternates are Allen West and Benjamin Netanyahu (it shouldn't be difficult to procure a credible birth certificate for Ben, considering precedent).
Almost half of the attendees of CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) were under the age of 26, and a plurality of these are libertarians or members of the liberty caucus. This is an international movement of youth who have opened their eyes and realized that as a generation they have been screwed by the collectivist members of their parent's generation, and are determined to do something about it. In libertarianism they see the solution.
Is this good or bad for Americans in general and Republicans in particular? In my opinion it is on balance very good, with the caveat that like anything else, the thing needs to understood by all at a greater than sophomoric level, or, like anything else again, it could just as easily lead to catastrophe.
So, what exactly is libertarianism? What do we need to understand about it?
The modern libertarian movement has its roots in the Austrian School of economics, which began in the late 19th century with Carl Menger and reached its apogee in the works of Friedrich Hayek (Nobel Laureate) and his mentor Ludwig Von Mises, whose 93-year lifespan overlapped with Menger's from 1881 until 1973, after Nixon had declared that "we're all Keynseyans now." (Come to think of it, that's probably what killed him.)
Like classical liberalism and modern American conservatism, libertarianism holds that the best model for political economy is that characterized by the most limited interference in the decisions of citizens, low taxes and light to no regulation beyond preventing and punishing murder, assault, robbery, theft, fraud, rape, persecution and conspiracy. Conservatives may call this being guided by the Ten Commandments; Libertarians might consider it plain common secular sense.
The Austrian school was the most radically minimalist in its view of the appropriate role of government, and that minimalism was taken to its radical extreme in the work of Mises' disciple Murray Rothbard, who posited that government wasn't even necessary for police and defense, as these services could be bought and sold on the free market just like bread and haircuts.
In 1963 Rothbard wrote a book on the Great Depression that I consider one of two absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to know just how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did NOT save the country from the Great Depression but rather worsened the crisis, and how Herbert Hoover was no free-market, laissez-faire pro-capitalist president; the other required reading being Jude Wanniski's (of Wall Street Journal fame) How the World Works. In the same book Rothbard also wrote the most clearly articulated presentation of Austrian business cycle theory (or the theory of booms, busts and crashes), a theory to which the financial crisis of 2008 fits like a textbook case.
The two dominant branches of Libertarianism in America today are represented by the Cato Institute on the one hand, based in Washington D.C. and focused on practical, policy-oriented research and lobbying, and the Mises Institute on the other, deliberately based away from the centers of power in Auburn Alabama in order to remain more purely focused on theory and academic freedom. While Murray Rothbard and the Mises Institute's president Lew Rockwell have carried Mises's theoretical torch forward in many ways admirably, in many other cases they have made assertions that Mises never did and probably never would have, and have done so dogmatically and intolerantly.
My infatuation with Rothbard ended abruptly when I read the op-Ed piece that he had written at the conclusion of the Reagan Administration. "Eight years, eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years of the Age of Reagan, are at long last coming to an end." he groaned in a piece titled 'Ronald Reagan, an Autopsy' -- fifteen years before the Gipper's actual passing. It was a littany of accusations worse than Thomas Jefferson's indictments of King George III in the Declaration of Independence. Nancy Pelosi could not have penned a more bitter diatribe. The only thing Rothbard gave credit to Reagan for was lifting the 55 mph federal highway speed limit.
Now, Ron Paul is derived from Rothbard, and in many respects in a good way. It was Rothbard who first penned the academic The Case Against the Fed from which Paul's more populist End the Fed is derived. I am mostly in agreement with these positions on domestic economic issues, as is John Allison, current president of the Cato Institute, bank president for 25 years and author of The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure.
So again, while I am wary of extremists of any stripe, my only quarrel with Libertarianism as such is the role and character of America’s diplomacy and armed forces in the world; on the latter I stand firmly with Ronald Reagan. Otherwise I look forward to the day when we’ll say that "We're all (conservative) libertarians now". That's much better than being all Keynseyans, or progressives, or all socialists. Maybe the young people can help us bring that about.
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click:
----------------
Today our meeting competes with the California State Convention of the Young Americans for Liberty at USC and coincidentally, my talk today is about Libertarianism and Republicans. I did not know about that event before I planned my presentation. I don't pretend to know anything in detail about that organization, but I do know something about Libertarianism from my own perspective, and with just enough serendipity today I hope to make a positive contribution to the discussion.
People sometimes ask me if I am a Liberarian, to which I reply, well, yes, I have some libertarian tendencies, but it's not like I have a meth lab in my Winnebago or anything. To clarify, I say that when I am elected President of the United States, Ron Paul will be my Czar in charge of the decommissioning of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Community Reinvestment Act, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, Section 1706 of the 1986 Tax Equity and Fairness Reform Act or TEFRA, and the Fed. On the other hand, as it pertains to foreign policy and geo-politics, my nominations for Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretaries of Defense and State are, in no particular order, John Bolton, John Bolton and John Bolton. In the unlikely event that Mr. Bolton is unequal to all three commissions simultaneously, my alternates are Allen West and Benjamin Netanyahu (it shouldn't be difficult to procure a credible birth certificate for Ben, considering precedent).
Almost half of the attendees of CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) were under the age of 26, and a plurality of these are libertarians or members of the liberty caucus. This is an international movement of youth who have opened their eyes and realized that as a generation they have been screwed by the collectivist members of their parent's generation, and are determined to do something about it. In libertarianism they see the solution.
Is this good or bad for Americans in general and Republicans in particular? In my opinion it is on balance very good, with the caveat that like anything else, the thing needs to understood by all at a greater than sophomoric level, or, like anything else again, it could just as easily lead to catastrophe.
So, what exactly is libertarianism? What do we need to understand about it?
The modern libertarian movement has its roots in the Austrian School of economics, which began in the late 19th century with Carl Menger and reached its apogee in the works of Friedrich Hayek (Nobel Laureate) and his mentor Ludwig Von Mises, whose 93-year lifespan overlapped with Menger's from 1881 until 1973, after Nixon had declared that "we're all Keynseyans now." (Come to think of it, that's probably what killed him.)
Like classical liberalism and modern American conservatism, libertarianism holds that the best model for political economy is that characterized by the most limited interference in the decisions of citizens, low taxes and light to no regulation beyond preventing and punishing murder, assault, robbery, theft, fraud, rape, persecution and conspiracy. Conservatives may call this being guided by the Ten Commandments; Libertarians might consider it plain common secular sense.
The Austrian school was the most radically minimalist in its view of the appropriate role of government, and that minimalism was taken to its radical extreme in the work of Mises' disciple Murray Rothbard, who posited that government wasn't even necessary for police and defense, as these services could be bought and sold on the free market just like bread and haircuts.
In 1963 Rothbard wrote a book on the Great Depression that I consider one of two absolutely required reading for anyone wanting to know just how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did NOT save the country from the Great Depression but rather worsened the crisis, and how Herbert Hoover was no free-market, laissez-faire pro-capitalist president; the other required reading being Jude Wanniski's (of Wall Street Journal fame) How the World Works. In the same book Rothbard also wrote the most clearly articulated presentation of Austrian business cycle theory (or the theory of booms, busts and crashes), a theory to which the financial crisis of 2008 fits like a textbook case.
The two dominant branches of Libertarianism in America today are represented by the Cato Institute on the one hand, based in Washington D.C. and focused on practical, policy-oriented research and lobbying, and the Mises Institute on the other, deliberately based away from the centers of power in Auburn Alabama in order to remain more purely focused on theory and academic freedom. While Murray Rothbard and the Mises Institute's president Lew Rockwell have carried Mises's theoretical torch forward in many ways admirably, in many other cases they have made assertions that Mises never did and probably never would have, and have done so dogmatically and intolerantly.
My infatuation with Rothbard ended abruptly when I read the op-Ed piece that he had written at the conclusion of the Reagan Administration. "Eight years, eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years of the Age of Reagan, are at long last coming to an end." he groaned in a piece titled 'Ronald Reagan, an Autopsy' -- fifteen years before the Gipper's actual passing. It was a littany of accusations worse than Thomas Jefferson's indictments of King George III in the Declaration of Independence. Nancy Pelosi could not have penned a more bitter diatribe. The only thing Rothbard gave credit to Reagan for was lifting the 55 mph federal highway speed limit.
Now, Ron Paul is derived from Rothbard, and in many respects in a good way. It was Rothbard who first penned the academic The Case Against the Fed from which Paul's more populist End the Fed is derived. I am mostly in agreement with these positions on domestic economic issues, as is John Allison, current president of the Cato Institute, bank president for 25 years and author of The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure.
So again, while I am wary of extremists of any stripe, my only quarrel with Libertarianism as such is the role and character of America’s diplomacy and armed forces in the world; on the latter I stand firmly with Ronald Reagan. Otherwise I look forward to the day when we’ll say that "We're all (conservative) libertarians now". That's much better than being all Keynseyans, or progressives, or all socialists. Maybe the young people can help us bring that about.
If you found this article valuable, consider making a donation of $1 today to encourage more work like it. Visit our Donate Page or click:
Monday, April 14, 2014
Campaign Finance Regulation Lightens
This article is re-'printed' from the April Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.
On April 2, in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the total amount that citizens may donate to political entities, or to limit the total number of candidates anyone may donate to in any two-year election cycle. Per-candidate limits of $2600 in the primary and another $2600 in the general election remain, but instead of being limited to 9 candidates, a citizen may donate to any number of them. And the overall cap of $123,200 on combined candidate, party and PAC contributions is history.
Democrats and media pundits greeted the news publicly with all the serenity they might reserve for the second coming of Robert Bork. Nancy Pelosi characterized it as an 'existential threat' to the nation. But even if she is sincere, she must certainly be talking about someone else, not herself or her immediate power base, as she is no slouch when it comes to fundraising. Indeed, even the New York Times conceded that the ruling is not an unambiguous victory for any one party. In fact, the ruling favors national parties over more narrowly-focused PACs and 527s. Parties tend to be more broad-based, more transparent and accountable than PACs and 527s, and had been put at a relative disadvantage in the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which shot down limits on corporate and union money.
Republicans may be encouraged that of those donors who maxed out under the old rules, 60% contributed to Republicans, but there is no guarantee that unlimited contributions will maintain the same proportions. As for this ruling increasing the corruptibility of our politics, the Wall Street Journal points out that there were only 664 such maxed-out individuals in 2012 for a total of $93 million, which is a less-than 4% drop in the bucket compared to the $2.8 billion raised from the much larger number (1.2 million) of more ordinary tycoons like you and me. Moreover, that $2.8 billion number is only 64% of the total spent on 2012. David Brooks, the relatively conservative voice of the New York Times, reminds us that 'There will always be money in politics; it’s a pipe dream to think otherwise' and that the net effect of campaign finance restrictions in the past has been to protect incumbents.
The vote was 5-4 along the usual-suspect lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas commenting that the ruling didn't go far enough in lifting restrictions. With the per-candidate limits still in place, we have the possible moral hazard that wealthy individuals who may not personally be the best candidate for the job, are nevertheless obliged to run themselves instead of sponsoring a more qualified (by whatever criteria chosen) candidate. This tends to fill our public offices with rich dunces and people skilled at broad-spectrum fundraising at the expense of nonwealthy, less-sophisticated candidates whose experience, understanding of economics and constitutional principles nevertheless might make them the voter's choice if only a handful of donors could have gotten the word out to make the public aware of that choice.
The fact that the ruling has generated such a diversity of opinion as to what it really means and who wins is an argument in its favor. The free market is not any one institution; it is the option to choose among many institutions, or no institution at all. The market for political expression has become one increment freer. We citizens now have the blessing and the responsibility of that greater freedom.
There is yet hope for America.
On April 2, in McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the total amount that citizens may donate to political entities, or to limit the total number of candidates anyone may donate to in any two-year election cycle. Per-candidate limits of $2600 in the primary and another $2600 in the general election remain, but instead of being limited to 9 candidates, a citizen may donate to any number of them. And the overall cap of $123,200 on combined candidate, party and PAC contributions is history.
Democrats and media pundits greeted the news publicly with all the serenity they might reserve for the second coming of Robert Bork. Nancy Pelosi characterized it as an 'existential threat' to the nation. But even if she is sincere, she must certainly be talking about someone else, not herself or her immediate power base, as she is no slouch when it comes to fundraising. Indeed, even the New York Times conceded that the ruling is not an unambiguous victory for any one party. In fact, the ruling favors national parties over more narrowly-focused PACs and 527s. Parties tend to be more broad-based, more transparent and accountable than PACs and 527s, and had been put at a relative disadvantage in the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which shot down limits on corporate and union money.
Republicans may be encouraged that of those donors who maxed out under the old rules, 60% contributed to Republicans, but there is no guarantee that unlimited contributions will maintain the same proportions. As for this ruling increasing the corruptibility of our politics, the Wall Street Journal points out that there were only 664 such maxed-out individuals in 2012 for a total of $93 million, which is a less-than 4% drop in the bucket compared to the $2.8 billion raised from the much larger number (1.2 million) of more ordinary tycoons like you and me. Moreover, that $2.8 billion number is only 64% of the total spent on 2012. David Brooks, the relatively conservative voice of the New York Times, reminds us that 'There will always be money in politics; it’s a pipe dream to think otherwise' and that the net effect of campaign finance restrictions in the past has been to protect incumbents.
The vote was 5-4 along the usual-suspect lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas commenting that the ruling didn't go far enough in lifting restrictions. With the per-candidate limits still in place, we have the possible moral hazard that wealthy individuals who may not personally be the best candidate for the job, are nevertheless obliged to run themselves instead of sponsoring a more qualified (by whatever criteria chosen) candidate. This tends to fill our public offices with rich dunces and people skilled at broad-spectrum fundraising at the expense of nonwealthy, less-sophisticated candidates whose experience, understanding of economics and constitutional principles nevertheless might make them the voter's choice if only a handful of donors could have gotten the word out to make the public aware of that choice.
The fact that the ruling has generated such a diversity of opinion as to what it really means and who wins is an argument in its favor. The free market is not any one institution; it is the option to choose among many institutions, or no institution at all. The market for political expression has become one increment freer. We citizens now have the blessing and the responsibility of that greater freedom.
There is yet hope for America.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Iron Firewall Descends on Ukraine
Ukraine, a nation of 45 million people, has for some time been the second greatest source of Internet traffic to this site; ahead of China, population 1.4 billion; ahead of Germany, Israel, France, Russia, Sweden, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands. Russia has a population three times that of Ukraine, yet Russia's traffic to HHCapitalism.com has been only 20% that of Ukraine's. So Ukrainians visit here at a per capita rate 15 times greater than that of Russians.
In the past week, that traffic has gone dark. The daily hit count from Ukraine has dwindled to zero.
It is a safe bet that whatever authority controls Ukrainians' access to the World Wide Web has seen fit to filter out access to 'subversive' sites that might 'confuse' the people, i.e. expose them to philosophies contrary to Putin's Mother Russia.
Readers are encouraged to forward stories of Internet censorship in Ukraine to HHCapitalism@gmail.com, or leave a comment to this post.
In the past week, that traffic has gone dark. The daily hit count from Ukraine has dwindled to zero.
It is a safe bet that whatever authority controls Ukrainians' access to the World Wide Web has seen fit to filter out access to 'subversive' sites that might 'confuse' the people, i.e. expose them to philosophies contrary to Putin's Mother Russia.
Readers are encouraged to forward stories of Internet censorship in Ukraine to HHCapitalism@gmail.com, or leave a comment to this post.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Health Care a Human Right?
Below is another excerpt from a special address by Howard Hyde to the Southern California Republican Women and Men, March 29, 2014
-----------------
The morning after the end of the CPAC conference I received a polite email from a man who had given me $20 for a copy of my book even though I had only been asking for $8 and was in some cases giving them away, because that late in the conference I didn't want to have a surplus to carry home in my luggage. The email began with some pleasantries and then came this: "Mr. Hyde, Many of the errors of your book stem from your lack of knowledge of healthcare from the inside."
Oh. Wasn't quite expecting a comment like that from a CPAC attendee, but fine.
For the record, I know a little bit about medicine from the inside, being married to a physician in private practice who not only has to deal with the regulatory assault on her profession in general, but the bureaucratic blindness and prejudice against her specialty in particular. But we'll set that aside for now.
I read on. He detailed his impressive accomplishments as a doctor, researcher and fat grant recipient. Among other things he said, "I describe myself as:
1. A social liberal -- essentially a libertarian position
2. A fiscal conservative
3. A theological fundamentalist -- this trumps number one
My practice (see website) is among the most transformative in the USA."
And then the kicker: "I believe that healthcare is a human right."
I consider this important to address because we have someone here who is not a low-information voter but a very intelligent and successful Medical professional, who believes that healthcare is a 'human right'.
Health care a 'Right'
Rights mean freedom from violent or coercive power, especially government power; freedom from being told what to do and what not to do.
Nothing can be a right which cannot be perfectly reciprocal between and among any and all individuals. I have a right that you do not murder me. I have a right not to be robbed, defrauded, raped, persecuted or conspired against by you. And you have exactly the same rights with respect to me. There is no contradiction or conflict between us having the same rights at the same time.
But if one person is to have an absolute right to be given something, then someone else has to be forced to give it to that person whether he wants to or not. Everyone cannot have the same right at the same time. If I have a right to health care, then you have to give it to me. But then that is a violation of your right to to your own life and property, including healthcare. And if I am equally obligated to provide the means of healthcare or anything else to you, then that is either a cancellation or an irreconcilable contradiction. Your right not to be murdered by me in no way violates my liberty. But my right to the goods and services produced by others against their will is my right to rob, which is a violation of other's more fundamental rights. They cannot coexist.
To say that health care is a right is equivalent to saying that a Mercedes is a right and that every citizen must be given one. For one thing, What we call Healthcare in 2014 is very different and far more advanced than anything known as Healthcare a century ago, a generation ago or even 10 years ago. One day the most entry-level automobile within the means of an entry-level factory worker will be as good as an advanced Mercedes is today, just as today's standard features of power steering, automatic transmission, airbags and antilock brakes were once available only in luxury editions reserved for the rich. The poor in America do not drive Model T's. If healthcare had been declared a right in 1950 in America, then everyone today might have access to healthcare as the state of the art was in 1950, but nobody would ever have had 2010 medicine as America achieved it under the greater liberty and lesser government intervention that existed here relative to all other nations.
If I encounter a sick person in the street, or if I become aware of someone in my social circle, work, my family, or in the church who is sick or otherwise in need of Healthcare Services which he or she cannot afford, then you may say that I have a moral obligation to help that person if I am at all able. But that is wholly different from saying that we must construct a massive salaried, pensioned and unaccountable bureaucratic army in Washington DC, commanded by elite politically connected power-brokers, to administer a system that overrides and supersedes the knowledge, power and decisions of patients, families and doctors in private practice. Moral obligation, informed by ethical principles, moved by persuasion and ultimately arbitrated by God or Providence, is completely different and incompatible with governmental coercion via taxation and the threat of imprisonment at gunpoint.
To the contrary it is both futile and immoral to violate the liberty of citizens in the pursuit of a 'greater good', for there is no greater good. It is precisely that liberty which has produced the most effective healthcare system in the world. I remind you that people who have no insurance at all in America have a statistically much better chance as to their actual health outcomes that those covered by the federal program that has targeted the poor for almost a half century already: Mediaid. Why don't we get that one right, or put it out of its misery, before granting orders of magnitude more power to the federal government?
Liberals object that charity is inadequate. But charity is only inadequate to well-educated people who want a high-paid professional career doing 'good'. Americans are the most generous people on earth, voluntarily donating more of their time, talent and treasure (at all income levels) than any other nation on earth, especially conservative Americans, and especially religious Americans.
Charity then is not a failure; it is a priceless gift to be cherished and cultivated for which we make no apology.
So charity is a real and important part of the solution. And what are the other parts? Thank you for asking, because this is what we need to be talking about. Everyone including liberals and union workers know the nightmare stories by now. With 38 un-legal delays and counting, the Affordable Care Act is a dead letter. What we need to saturate the airwaves with now is a discussion of the ALTERNATIVES to socialized medicine and to the inevitable resurgent leftist push for Single Payer.
The alternatives are, in no particular order:
-----------------
The morning after the end of the CPAC conference I received a polite email from a man who had given me $20 for a copy of my book even though I had only been asking for $8 and was in some cases giving them away, because that late in the conference I didn't want to have a surplus to carry home in my luggage. The email began with some pleasantries and then came this: "Mr. Hyde, Many of the errors of your book stem from your lack of knowledge of healthcare from the inside."
Oh. Wasn't quite expecting a comment like that from a CPAC attendee, but fine.
For the record, I know a little bit about medicine from the inside, being married to a physician in private practice who not only has to deal with the regulatory assault on her profession in general, but the bureaucratic blindness and prejudice against her specialty in particular. But we'll set that aside for now.
I read on. He detailed his impressive accomplishments as a doctor, researcher and fat grant recipient. Among other things he said, "I describe myself as:
1. A social liberal -- essentially a libertarian position
2. A fiscal conservative
3. A theological fundamentalist -- this trumps number one
My practice (see website) is among the most transformative in the USA."
And then the kicker: "I believe that healthcare is a human right."
I consider this important to address because we have someone here who is not a low-information voter but a very intelligent and successful Medical professional, who believes that healthcare is a 'human right'.
Health care a 'Right'
Rights mean freedom from violent or coercive power, especially government power; freedom from being told what to do and what not to do.
Nothing can be a right which cannot be perfectly reciprocal between and among any and all individuals. I have a right that you do not murder me. I have a right not to be robbed, defrauded, raped, persecuted or conspired against by you. And you have exactly the same rights with respect to me. There is no contradiction or conflict between us having the same rights at the same time.
But if one person is to have an absolute right to be given something, then someone else has to be forced to give it to that person whether he wants to or not. Everyone cannot have the same right at the same time. If I have a right to health care, then you have to give it to me. But then that is a violation of your right to to your own life and property, including healthcare. And if I am equally obligated to provide the means of healthcare or anything else to you, then that is either a cancellation or an irreconcilable contradiction. Your right not to be murdered by me in no way violates my liberty. But my right to the goods and services produced by others against their will is my right to rob, which is a violation of other's more fundamental rights. They cannot coexist.
To say that health care is a right is equivalent to saying that a Mercedes is a right and that every citizen must be given one. For one thing, What we call Healthcare in 2014 is very different and far more advanced than anything known as Healthcare a century ago, a generation ago or even 10 years ago. One day the most entry-level automobile within the means of an entry-level factory worker will be as good as an advanced Mercedes is today, just as today's standard features of power steering, automatic transmission, airbags and antilock brakes were once available only in luxury editions reserved for the rich. The poor in America do not drive Model T's. If healthcare had been declared a right in 1950 in America, then everyone today might have access to healthcare as the state of the art was in 1950, but nobody would ever have had 2010 medicine as America achieved it under the greater liberty and lesser government intervention that existed here relative to all other nations.
If I encounter a sick person in the street, or if I become aware of someone in my social circle, work, my family, or in the church who is sick or otherwise in need of Healthcare Services which he or she cannot afford, then you may say that I have a moral obligation to help that person if I am at all able. But that is wholly different from saying that we must construct a massive salaried, pensioned and unaccountable bureaucratic army in Washington DC, commanded by elite politically connected power-brokers, to administer a system that overrides and supersedes the knowledge, power and decisions of patients, families and doctors in private practice. Moral obligation, informed by ethical principles, moved by persuasion and ultimately arbitrated by God or Providence, is completely different and incompatible with governmental coercion via taxation and the threat of imprisonment at gunpoint.
To the contrary it is both futile and immoral to violate the liberty of citizens in the pursuit of a 'greater good', for there is no greater good. It is precisely that liberty which has produced the most effective healthcare system in the world. I remind you that people who have no insurance at all in America have a statistically much better chance as to their actual health outcomes that those covered by the federal program that has targeted the poor for almost a half century already: Mediaid. Why don't we get that one right, or put it out of its misery, before granting orders of magnitude more power to the federal government?
Liberals object that charity is inadequate. But charity is only inadequate to well-educated people who want a high-paid professional career doing 'good'. Americans are the most generous people on earth, voluntarily donating more of their time, talent and treasure (at all income levels) than any other nation on earth, especially conservative Americans, and especially religious Americans.
Charity then is not a failure; it is a priceless gift to be cherished and cultivated for which we make no apology.
So charity is a real and important part of the solution. And what are the other parts? Thank you for asking, because this is what we need to be talking about. Everyone including liberals and union workers know the nightmare stories by now. With 38 un-legal delays and counting, the Affordable Care Act is a dead letter. What we need to saturate the airwaves with now is a discussion of the ALTERNATIVES to socialized medicine and to the inevitable resurgent leftist push for Single Payer.
The alternatives are, in no particular order:
- Promote competition across state lines.
- Eliminate the mandates
- Repeal the Obamacare taxes
- Boost Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs)
- Reform the tort liability casino (as Texas has done, very successfully).
Allow all medical expenses and premiums to be 100% tax deductible for everyone, independent of any employment relationship.
- Allow physicians to take a tax deduction or credit for services rendered pro bono.
- Eliminate government subsidies for unhealthy products like sugar, corn syrup and tobacco (yes, we still subsidize tobacco).
- Abolish the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a.k.a. The Death Panel.
- Reform Medicaid to make it better than having no insurance at all, or pull the plug on it too.
- Honor the medical license. Doctors know medicine and their patients; Washington bureaucrats do not."
Friday, April 11, 2014
Takeaways from CPAC
Below is an excerpt from a special address to the members and guests of the Southern California Republican Women And Men by Howard Hyde, March 29, 2014
------------------------
Once again thank you all for interrupting your Spring Break to come here today...If I have a theme to hold all of my disparate material together, I think it will be simply what Evan Sayet calls Adopt-a-Democrat. One of the most important things we do here is learn how to talk to our liberal brother-in-law, debate our progressive colleague and convert out Democrat friend. If I can impart to you just one insight or argument that you can use to that end, I will have succeeded.
It was our privilege to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC this past March 6-8 in National Harbor Maryland. As I wrote in my newsletter message, there was so much going on that there was no way to take all of it in, and if you get briefings from 10 people who attended, you might get the impression that they attended 11 different conferences. Even so, I hope my report does it some justice and that other attendees might concur with me.
Some people were disappointed with the conference, feeling that their greatest concerns received inadequate attention. To some it was a sham cover for establishment Republicans to pretend that they are conservative when they are not; to others there was insufficient emphasis on the sanctity of life and the abomination of abortion. Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal cautions us to sober up about a presidential candidate bench that resembles a casino roulette wheel -- spin it enough times are we're bound to land on a lucky number! Israel, the Middle East and radical Islam received comparatively minor attention in my perception now that Putin's Anschluss of Ukraine has upstaged the mullahs and bin Laden's heirs, at least for the time being. As for myself, I was satisfied that Obamacare and its horrors are finally receiving the attention that they deserve. The Obamacare fiasco was at or near the top of almost every prominent speaker's agenda, as it should have been...last year, the year before that and the year before that. If we had had this clarity of understanding and commitment of purpose four years ago, then we would not be suffering this massive slow-motion train wreck today.
Rock Stars and Grownups
You've heard the stories of the rock stars of the conference, like the bookends Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, and the Straw Poll king Rand Paul. I won't add much to what you've heard other than that standing outside of the main hall during Paul's speech was like being outside of a football stadium during the Super Bowl, and that Sarah Palin really, really, REALLY annoys liberals, who seem unable to offer any substantive rebuttal to what she says but feel free to insult her, and by extension us, in every way imaginable. It is clear that this NOT what the feminists had in mind when they said 'diversity' or 'equal pay for equal work'.
Rick Perry came in 9th in the straw poll, but should not be written off by thoughtful conservatives and Republicans IMHO. Unlike Obama, who never achieved anything of substance in his life before becoming President, Perry has a very distinguished record as a grownup doing the very serious work of administering a large and thriving state, proving that it is possible to prosper even in Obama's America. 30% of the job growth for all 50 United States in the past few years has occurred in just one state: Texas. Texas is the model for how all states and the nation ought to be governed; low taxes, light and reasonable regulation, limited government, a responsible citizenry (are you listening California?). Perry's accomplishments go beyond the headline-grabbing topics of taxes and jobs to less-discussed but equally remarkable areas like prison reform. Texas in recent years has been able to accomplish what liberals have for decades claimed that they could do but have failed at every time: that is, simultaneously reduce both the prison population AND the general crime rate.
And by the way, Perry also got a standing O for his speech in the main hall.
Donald Trump fired a few verbal surface-to-surface missiles in the direction of China in his usual calm and understated style. But there were also other perspectives on China, and it had me wishing that the Southern California Republican Women and Men would one day command the resources to be able to sponsor a panel discussion between Trump, Don Huntsman, former presidential candidate, governor of Utah and United States ambassador to China; Daniel Griswold, fellow at the Cato Institute and author of the pro free-trade and pro let's-all-just-calm-down-a-bit-about-China book titled Mad About Trade; and Kai Chen, our own one-in-a-billion former Chinese national basketball team player who reminds us daily that China is still an authoritarian, communist regime that tolerates no political dissent or free speech in spite of polishing the world image of a civilized, dynamic capitalistic nation. Those four authorities would make for a most enlightening discussion.
Speaking of the Cato Institute, its president John Allison was there along with Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on a panel titled 'After Obama Day 1: What are the Big Alternative Ideas Conservatives Should Present as Obama's Term Ends? Before he became chief of Cato, for a quarter century John Allison ran a North Carolina bank guided by conservative libertarian principles, grew it from single-digit billions to triple-digit billions and did NOT need a bailout when TARP arrived, but was obliged to take it essentially at gunpoint. His book, The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure is a well-informed and insightful insiders view of the government-led corruption that led to the meltdown of 2008 and the ill-advised remedies like Dodd-Frank that will plague us for years to come. I highly recommend it.
A few of the women of distinction were Chrystal Wright, a.k.a. 'Conservative Black Chick'; Tammy Bruce, radio talk show host who used to be a liberal feminist lesbian, but who is now a staunch independent conservative feminist lesbian; and Phyllis Schlafly, who, for those of you too young to remember her, earned the modest distinction of having almost single-handedly defeated an ill-advised amendment to the United States Constitution at a time when its passage had seemed almost inevitable. She was there, sharp as a tack at the tender age of 89 1/2, and I got a chance to speak with her briefly outside the elevators. I told her that as a liberal growing up in Berkeley the only way I knew about her was from reading Doonesbury cartoons. Her face lit up and she said that when she had made the Doonesbury pages, her kid's respect for her had spiked.
One of the most impressive women there UNDER the age of 89 1/2 to me was Carly Fiorina, who participated in the panel with John Allison and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Very articulate on a broad range of issues, I think she will be a major figure on our side of the aisle for many years. I'm thinking maybe Secretary of Commerce? Or better yet, why not President ...of the Southern California Republican Women and Men in 2016? Just a thought.
Disappointingly absent from the conference were any of the female Republican Governors, like Susanna Martinez of New Mexico, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma or Jan Brewer of Arizona.
------------------------
Once again thank you all for interrupting your Spring Break to come here today...If I have a theme to hold all of my disparate material together, I think it will be simply what Evan Sayet calls Adopt-a-Democrat. One of the most important things we do here is learn how to talk to our liberal brother-in-law, debate our progressive colleague and convert out Democrat friend. If I can impart to you just one insight or argument that you can use to that end, I will have succeeded.
It was our privilege to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC this past March 6-8 in National Harbor Maryland. As I wrote in my newsletter message, there was so much going on that there was no way to take all of it in, and if you get briefings from 10 people who attended, you might get the impression that they attended 11 different conferences. Even so, I hope my report does it some justice and that other attendees might concur with me.
Some people were disappointed with the conference, feeling that their greatest concerns received inadequate attention. To some it was a sham cover for establishment Republicans to pretend that they are conservative when they are not; to others there was insufficient emphasis on the sanctity of life and the abomination of abortion. Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal cautions us to sober up about a presidential candidate bench that resembles a casino roulette wheel -- spin it enough times are we're bound to land on a lucky number! Israel, the Middle East and radical Islam received comparatively minor attention in my perception now that Putin's Anschluss of Ukraine has upstaged the mullahs and bin Laden's heirs, at least for the time being. As for myself, I was satisfied that Obamacare and its horrors are finally receiving the attention that they deserve. The Obamacare fiasco was at or near the top of almost every prominent speaker's agenda, as it should have been...last year, the year before that and the year before that. If we had had this clarity of understanding and commitment of purpose four years ago, then we would not be suffering this massive slow-motion train wreck today.
Rock Stars and Grownups
You've heard the stories of the rock stars of the conference, like the bookends Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin, and the Straw Poll king Rand Paul. I won't add much to what you've heard other than that standing outside of the main hall during Paul's speech was like being outside of a football stadium during the Super Bowl, and that Sarah Palin really, really, REALLY annoys liberals, who seem unable to offer any substantive rebuttal to what she says but feel free to insult her, and by extension us, in every way imaginable. It is clear that this NOT what the feminists had in mind when they said 'diversity' or 'equal pay for equal work'.
Rick Perry came in 9th in the straw poll, but should not be written off by thoughtful conservatives and Republicans IMHO. Unlike Obama, who never achieved anything of substance in his life before becoming President, Perry has a very distinguished record as a grownup doing the very serious work of administering a large and thriving state, proving that it is possible to prosper even in Obama's America. 30% of the job growth for all 50 United States in the past few years has occurred in just one state: Texas. Texas is the model for how all states and the nation ought to be governed; low taxes, light and reasonable regulation, limited government, a responsible citizenry (are you listening California?). Perry's accomplishments go beyond the headline-grabbing topics of taxes and jobs to less-discussed but equally remarkable areas like prison reform. Texas in recent years has been able to accomplish what liberals have for decades claimed that they could do but have failed at every time: that is, simultaneously reduce both the prison population AND the general crime rate.
And by the way, Perry also got a standing O for his speech in the main hall.
Donald Trump fired a few verbal surface-to-surface missiles in the direction of China in his usual calm and understated style. But there were also other perspectives on China, and it had me wishing that the Southern California Republican Women and Men would one day command the resources to be able to sponsor a panel discussion between Trump, Don Huntsman, former presidential candidate, governor of Utah and United States ambassador to China; Daniel Griswold, fellow at the Cato Institute and author of the pro free-trade and pro let's-all-just-calm-down-a-bit-about-China book titled Mad About Trade; and Kai Chen, our own one-in-a-billion former Chinese national basketball team player who reminds us daily that China is still an authoritarian, communist regime that tolerates no political dissent or free speech in spite of polishing the world image of a civilized, dynamic capitalistic nation. Those four authorities would make for a most enlightening discussion.
Speaking of the Cato Institute, its president John Allison was there along with Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on a panel titled 'After Obama Day 1: What are the Big Alternative Ideas Conservatives Should Present as Obama's Term Ends? Before he became chief of Cato, for a quarter century John Allison ran a North Carolina bank guided by conservative libertarian principles, grew it from single-digit billions to triple-digit billions and did NOT need a bailout when TARP arrived, but was obliged to take it essentially at gunpoint. His book, The Financial Crisis and the Free-Market Cure is a well-informed and insightful insiders view of the government-led corruption that led to the meltdown of 2008 and the ill-advised remedies like Dodd-Frank that will plague us for years to come. I highly recommend it.
A few of the women of distinction were Chrystal Wright, a.k.a. 'Conservative Black Chick'; Tammy Bruce, radio talk show host who used to be a liberal feminist lesbian, but who is now a staunch independent conservative feminist lesbian; and Phyllis Schlafly, who, for those of you too young to remember her, earned the modest distinction of having almost single-handedly defeated an ill-advised amendment to the United States Constitution at a time when its passage had seemed almost inevitable. She was there, sharp as a tack at the tender age of 89 1/2, and I got a chance to speak with her briefly outside the elevators. I told her that as a liberal growing up in Berkeley the only way I knew about her was from reading Doonesbury cartoons. Her face lit up and she said that when she had made the Doonesbury pages, her kid's respect for her had spiked.
One of the most impressive women there UNDER the age of 89 1/2 to me was Carly Fiorina, who participated in the panel with John Allison and Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch. Very articulate on a broad range of issues, I think she will be a major figure on our side of the aisle for many years. I'm thinking maybe Secretary of Commerce? Or better yet, why not President ...of the Southern California Republican Women and Men in 2016? Just a thought.
Disappointingly absent from the conference were any of the female Republican Governors, like Susanna Martinez of New Mexico, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma or Jan Brewer of Arizona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)