"A successful insurgency often puts leaders of the insurgents into closer contact with knowledge that was either unavailable or not so vivid when the insurgents were outsiders, and thereby forces correction of plausible beliefs that will not stand authentication."
-Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Friday, September 19, 2014
Technology enables leftists to win without courting center
The Democrats and the institutional left have a new political tool that allows them virtually to ignore moderates yet still win elections.
This tool, the Catalist database, was employed in the 2012 election. That election defied conventional wisdom: Mitt Romney sought and won independent voters overwhelmingly, but still lost. If you wondered why the conventional wisdom about independents and moderates didn’t seem so wise in 2012, the answer is Catalist.
Read the complete article at PJMedia.com.
This tool, the Catalist database, was employed in the 2012 election. That election defied conventional wisdom: Mitt Romney sought and won independent voters overwhelmingly, but still lost. If you wondered why the conventional wisdom about independents and moderates didn’t seem so wise in 2012, the answer is Catalist.
Read the complete article at PJMedia.com.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Obamacare bulldozes 250,000 health plans in Virginia
Last week roughly 250,000 Virginians began receiving notices that their health insurance was being canceled because it failed to meet all the mandates and other regulatory requirements of Obamacare. They are likely to be just the first in a new wave of Americans who are being thrown off their current insurance plan — even if they like it, to recall President Obama’s now inoperative promise.
...It should be noted that, as with previous cancellations, those Americans who lose their plans because of Obamacare will most likely find new insurance. But a new study from the National Center for Public Policy Research found that, on average, Obamacare plans were worse than the plans they replaced, in terms of both providers covered and cost-sharing.
Read the complete article by Michael Tanner at NationalReview.com
.
...It should be noted that, as with previous cancellations, those Americans who lose their plans because of Obamacare will most likely find new insurance. But a new study from the National Center for Public Policy Research found that, on average, Obamacare plans were worse than the plans they replaced, in terms of both providers covered and cost-sharing.
Read the complete article by Michael Tanner at NationalReview.com
.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Obama's Health Care Vietnam
Obama's Health Care Vietnam
By Douglas A. Perednia, M.D.
Talk to the average physician about trying to care for patients in the United States today, and you’ll hear exactly the same sorts of sentiments as those expressed by American soldiers faced with the task of “winning the war” in Vietnam some fifty years ago. For those on the front line of fighting illness, it is apparent that the Democrats' war on American medicine is not a path to cheap quality care, but a quagmire of rules and complexity that can make even the most basic care difficult to deliver. Now that ObamaCare has directly or indirectly wormed its way into every aspect of care and payment, many patients are beginning to feel the pain as well. Examples are as close as your nearest clinic or doctor’s office, where medical experts with decades of training are now routinely required to obtain insurance approval for even the most basic tests, procedures, and medications.
Read the complete article at AmericanThinker.com.
By Douglas A. Perednia, M.D.
Talk to the average physician about trying to care for patients in the United States today, and you’ll hear exactly the same sorts of sentiments as those expressed by American soldiers faced with the task of “winning the war” in Vietnam some fifty years ago. For those on the front line of fighting illness, it is apparent that the Democrats' war on American medicine is not a path to cheap quality care, but a quagmire of rules and complexity that can make even the most basic care difficult to deliver. Now that ObamaCare has directly or indirectly wormed its way into every aspect of care and payment, many patients are beginning to feel the pain as well. Examples are as close as your nearest clinic or doctor’s office, where medical experts with decades of training are now routinely required to obtain insurance approval for even the most basic tests, procedures, and medications.
Read the complete article at AmericanThinker.com.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Forbes: Overview of Obamacare Provisions
The PPACA contains a number of requirements to which insurers and individuals must adhere. Here is a list of the major changes under Obamacare.
- Guaranteed Issue
- Minimum Standards
- Individual Mandate
- Health Insurance Exchanges
- Low Income Subsidies
- Medicaid Expansion
- Medicare Payment a Reforms
Monday, September 15, 2014
Obamacare: Does Failure to Collapse Constitute Success?
Health insurance premiums rose by double-digit percentages on average from 2013 to 2014, and are estimated to continue rising by 7 to 8 percent in 2015. But because Obamacare hasn't 'collapsed' and because some people are shielded from the rate increases by subsidies, the Left is declaring victory.
Obamacare was supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare to the average family by $2500. Instead those costs have surged, with no reduction in sight. Nice 'victory' if you can move the goalposts at will.
Read the complete article by Avik Roy at www.Forbes.com.
Obamacare was supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare to the average family by $2500. Instead those costs have surged, with no reduction in sight. Nice 'victory' if you can move the goalposts at will.
Read the complete article by Avik Roy at www.Forbes.com.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Obamacare Website Price Tag: $840 million and Counting
Healthcare.gov would have been much easier and cheaper to build if they had simply stitched together the IRS tax filing system with the FBI's criminal background check system.
Read the full story at The Wall Street Journal.
P.S. Some content is still worth paying for, even in our everything-is-free era. The Wall Street Journal is one example (how I wish I could get paid to say that!).
Read the full story at The Wall Street Journal.
P.S. Some content is still worth paying for, even in our everything-is-free era. The Wall Street Journal is one example (how I wish I could get paid to say that!).
Mission Accomplished, Mr. President?
Barack Obama's January 28, 2014 State of the Union speech is worth re-reading, not least of all for gems like this one:
"Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure. When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America’s longest war will finally be over."
Right. Sorry you didn't vote for Romney yet?
Read the complete speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address.
Or watch the video at: YouTube.com.
"Tonight, because of the extraordinary troops and civilians who risk and lay down their lives to keep us free, the United States is more secure. When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq. More than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from Afghanistan. With Afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role. Together with our allies, we will complete our mission there by the end of this year, and America’s longest war will finally be over."
Right. Sorry you didn't vote for Romney yet?
Read the complete speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address.
Or watch the video at: YouTube.com.
John C. Goodman M.D. on Obamacare vs. Jobs
John C. Goodman M.D. writes in Townhall on the impact of Obamacare on the job market. A few excerpts:
Why can’t people find a job? Three Federal Reserve Banks – in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta – have released business surveys that confirm what many of us have been predicting. The new health law is discouraging a significant number of firms from hiring and is also pushing workers into part-time, rather than full time jobs.
Philadelphia Region:
18.2% of employers say they cut workers versus 3.0 percent who hired more.
18.2% say the proportion of part-time workers is higher versus 1.5% who say it is lower.
New York Region:
21% of manufacturers say they are reducing employment, while 3% are increasing their workforce.
Among manufacturers, 19.3% say they are increasing the proportion of part-time work, while 3.5% say they are reducing it.
Almost three-fourths of employers are increasing the employee contribution for health insurance;
84% are increasing the deductible;
79% are increasing copayments; and
40% are reducing the range of covered benefits.
Atlanta Region:
34% of businesses planned to hire more part-time workers than in the past, mostly because of a rise in the relative costs of their full-time colleagues.
Read the complete article at Townhall.com.
Why can’t people find a job? Three Federal Reserve Banks – in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta – have released business surveys that confirm what many of us have been predicting. The new health law is discouraging a significant number of firms from hiring and is also pushing workers into part-time, rather than full time jobs.
Philadelphia Region:
18.2% of employers say they cut workers versus 3.0 percent who hired more.
18.2% say the proportion of part-time workers is higher versus 1.5% who say it is lower.
New York Region:
21% of manufacturers say they are reducing employment, while 3% are increasing their workforce.
Among manufacturers, 19.3% say they are increasing the proportion of part-time work, while 3.5% say they are reducing it.
Almost three-fourths of employers are increasing the employee contribution for health insurance;
84% are increasing the deductible;
79% are increasing copayments; and
40% are reducing the range of covered benefits.
Atlanta Region:
34% of businesses planned to hire more part-time workers than in the past, mostly because of a rise in the relative costs of their full-time colleagues.
Read the complete article at Townhall.com.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Policy, Liberty and Coalitions
[Previously published as the 'President's Message' in the August 2014 newsletter of the Southern California Republican a women and Men]
By Howard Hyde
Politics and public policy are overrated.
So says an author, speaker and activist on political economy and president of a prominent political club.
By that I mean, we put more trust than we should in government and regulation to achieve what we could (and in many cases must) just as well do via voluntary cooperation, mutual initiative and free markets. We despair too much if policy doesn't meet our preferences, forgetting that policy isn't the last word as to what happens and what we may do. And the 'we' I refer to is not limited to any one political party.
For example, regarding the current border crisis, if we implemented a policy of rapidly processing all of the asylum claims and swiftly returning denied claimants back to their parents in Honduras, that would displease people of the Open Borders and 'baby Jesus' persuasion. But it would not prevent any American who wants to, from compassionate liberals to Glenn Beck, from providing whatever support, assistance, adoption or sponsorship they see fit to any of the migrant children, whether here or in their home countries. If all government poverty programs were abolished, that would not prevent any Americans who wanted to from taking care of poor people and organizing charitable activities, job training, rehabilitation or whatever is required. Even though abortion is legal, that fact alone doesn't prevent pro-life conservatives from influencing their own families and communities, to persuade women not to have abortions, and to organize and raise funds to provide support services for women in crisis pregnancies. Even if abortion were made illegal, private voluntary initiatives like this would still be absolutely necessary.
The great difficulty of political choices, as opposed to free-market economic ones, is that the former are by nature categorical, all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave it. If you like one candidate's position on foreign policy, you can't have it unless you also accept his or her position on taxes, gay marriage, abortion and health care. It's an indivisible package. Moreover, you only get one chance vote every two to four years and can't change your mind a few months later (as many Obama/Obamacare supporters now wish they could).
It is no wonder then that politics, campaigns and elections are so contentious, and in many parts of the world, bloody.
Contrast that with what you observe in any market. Hundreds, or even millions of individuals come together who don't know each other, may not like each other, and yet they exchange freely, with the result (assuming no fraud or coercion) being the greatest all-around satisfaction possible on an imperfect earth. The contents of every individual's or family's shopping basket is unique and distinct from every other individual's or family's. This one contains two gallons of milk, a pound of broccoli and 3 pints of Ben & Jerry's. That one has one gallon of milk, a half dozen eggs and two loaves of bread. The choices are incremental and adjustable from day to day or even minute to minute. It is the most virtuous circle ever invented.
The great challenge of politics then (at least as we conservative libertarians see it) is to minimize conflict by permitting more choices to be made incrementally and fewer needing to be categorical. It is very difficult to reconcile this view with the liberal progressive paradigm of having the government involved comprehensively in every aspect of citizens' lives, from public transportation systems that require massive subsidies to birth control, which apparently according to liberals, also requires massive subsidies. But it ought to be possible to reconcile the warring factions of the Republican movement, from the 'establishment' to social conservatives to Tea Partiers to libertarians. If the size and jackboot print of government were reduced through lower tax rates, lighter regulation and reduced spending, then each segment of our movement should find greater scope of freedom within which to exercise personal and social preferences.
Even the tension between the anti-interventionist libertarians and the defense-hawk conservatives would be relieved by having a smaller state in which Defense occupies a greater relative percentage of the budget, because with fewer distractions, there can be greater citizen oversight over what our military and intelligence agencies are doing.
In any case, the warring factions of the Republican movement need to actively seek what we all have in common in order to do battle with the greatest threat to our constitutional republic in its history. Let us tolerate differences of opinion within our common framework, not be small-minded, and unite to defeat anti-constitutional leftist socialist progressivism.
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:
By Howard Hyde
Politics and public policy are overrated.
So says an author, speaker and activist on political economy and president of a prominent political club.
By that I mean, we put more trust than we should in government and regulation to achieve what we could (and in many cases must) just as well do via voluntary cooperation, mutual initiative and free markets. We despair too much if policy doesn't meet our preferences, forgetting that policy isn't the last word as to what happens and what we may do. And the 'we' I refer to is not limited to any one political party.
For example, regarding the current border crisis, if we implemented a policy of rapidly processing all of the asylum claims and swiftly returning denied claimants back to their parents in Honduras, that would displease people of the Open Borders and 'baby Jesus' persuasion. But it would not prevent any American who wants to, from compassionate liberals to Glenn Beck, from providing whatever support, assistance, adoption or sponsorship they see fit to any of the migrant children, whether here or in their home countries. If all government poverty programs were abolished, that would not prevent any Americans who wanted to from taking care of poor people and organizing charitable activities, job training, rehabilitation or whatever is required. Even though abortion is legal, that fact alone doesn't prevent pro-life conservatives from influencing their own families and communities, to persuade women not to have abortions, and to organize and raise funds to provide support services for women in crisis pregnancies. Even if abortion were made illegal, private voluntary initiatives like this would still be absolutely necessary.
The great difficulty of political choices, as opposed to free-market economic ones, is that the former are by nature categorical, all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave it. If you like one candidate's position on foreign policy, you can't have it unless you also accept his or her position on taxes, gay marriage, abortion and health care. It's an indivisible package. Moreover, you only get one chance vote every two to four years and can't change your mind a few months later (as many Obama/Obamacare supporters now wish they could).
It is no wonder then that politics, campaigns and elections are so contentious, and in many parts of the world, bloody.
Contrast that with what you observe in any market. Hundreds, or even millions of individuals come together who don't know each other, may not like each other, and yet they exchange freely, with the result (assuming no fraud or coercion) being the greatest all-around satisfaction possible on an imperfect earth. The contents of every individual's or family's shopping basket is unique and distinct from every other individual's or family's. This one contains two gallons of milk, a pound of broccoli and 3 pints of Ben & Jerry's. That one has one gallon of milk, a half dozen eggs and two loaves of bread. The choices are incremental and adjustable from day to day or even minute to minute. It is the most virtuous circle ever invented.
The great challenge of politics then (at least as we conservative libertarians see it) is to minimize conflict by permitting more choices to be made incrementally and fewer needing to be categorical. It is very difficult to reconcile this view with the liberal progressive paradigm of having the government involved comprehensively in every aspect of citizens' lives, from public transportation systems that require massive subsidies to birth control, which apparently according to liberals, also requires massive subsidies. But it ought to be possible to reconcile the warring factions of the Republican movement, from the 'establishment' to social conservatives to Tea Partiers to libertarians. If the size and jackboot print of government were reduced through lower tax rates, lighter regulation and reduced spending, then each segment of our movement should find greater scope of freedom within which to exercise personal and social preferences.
Even the tension between the anti-interventionist libertarians and the defense-hawk conservatives would be relieved by having a smaller state in which Defense occupies a greater relative percentage of the budget, because with fewer distractions, there can be greater citizen oversight over what our military and intelligence agencies are doing.
In any case, the warring factions of the Republican movement need to actively seek what we all have in common in order to do battle with the greatest threat to our constitutional republic in its history. Let us tolerate differences of opinion within our common framework, not be small-minded, and unite to defeat anti-constitutional leftist socialist progressivism.
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:
A 'Best of' on Jobs and Employment
By Howard Hyde
My November 2013 article 'Where Do Jobs Come From?' asked and explained the fundamental mechanics of job creation and growth, which are not taught in schools or universities today; not even, it seems, in economics degree programs. The article hasn't lost any steam in the 10 months since it was first published.
Here is a sampling of the responses:
"Howard, excellently done. You lay out in simple language that anyone can understand the dynamics of job creation. This essay should be required reading in high schools (and middle schools) throughout the country." - Gary Aminoff
"There are economics and business majors across the USA (and probably Canada too) who will graduate in May or June of next year. And they have not yet read one article like this. It is not in the curriculum. Nor have they had one of their professors (more like Teacher's Assistants these days, I think) lecture the points made here." - Fernando
"Excellent article, Mr. Hyde, it should be required reading and re-reading...each & every year for all youngsters from Jr. High, Sr. High and throughout their college, trade school and / or apprenticeship years of education." - KansasCindy
"This article is an exemplar of clarity, logic, and structure, in its advocacy of literacy in fundamental market economics. It deftly shows how -- with nary a care -- the winds of government caprice or malice can blow down the tenuous structure of businesses large or small, startup or established. If students understood these straightforward concepts -- why would third grade be too early to introduce them? -- we'd be producing better-educated, more self-reliant, capitalism-oriented adults." - Dernan_Ruton
"Mr. Hyde, you get an AAA+ for this article! I cannot tell you how many times I've needed this information." - ATMember
Read the full article at AmericanThinker.com.
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:
My November 2013 article 'Where Do Jobs Come From?' asked and explained the fundamental mechanics of job creation and growth, which are not taught in schools or universities today; not even, it seems, in economics degree programs. The article hasn't lost any steam in the 10 months since it was first published.
Here is a sampling of the responses:
"Howard, excellently done. You lay out in simple language that anyone can understand the dynamics of job creation. This essay should be required reading in high schools (and middle schools) throughout the country." - Gary Aminoff
"There are economics and business majors across the USA (and probably Canada too) who will graduate in May or June of next year. And they have not yet read one article like this. It is not in the curriculum. Nor have they had one of their professors (more like Teacher's Assistants these days, I think) lecture the points made here." - Fernando
"Excellent article, Mr. Hyde, it should be required reading and re-reading...each & every year for all youngsters from Jr. High, Sr. High and throughout their college, trade school and / or apprenticeship years of education." - KansasCindy
"This article is an exemplar of clarity, logic, and structure, in its advocacy of literacy in fundamental market economics. It deftly shows how -- with nary a care -- the winds of government caprice or malice can blow down the tenuous structure of businesses large or small, startup or established. If students understood these straightforward concepts -- why would third grade be too early to introduce them? -- we'd be producing better-educated, more self-reliant, capitalism-oriented adults." - Dernan_Ruton
"Mr. Hyde, you get an AAA+ for this article! I cannot tell you how many times I've needed this information." - ATMember
Read the full article at AmericanThinker.com.
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:
Obamacare Reporter Rocks Too
"A one-stop resource for print, web, blogs and videos about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's implementation as covered by media - compiled from hundreds of news sources, news feeds, and searches."
Visit the site at: http://www.obamacarereporter.com.
Twitter:@OCareReporter
Visit the site at: http://www.obamacarereporter.com.
Twitter:@OCareReporter
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Real Clear Policy Rocks for Obamacare News
The Health Care page of the Real Clear Policy website is an excellent resource for news related to health care policy, Obamacare etc. Articles by leading writers on the subject such as Avik Roy, author of How Medicaid Fails the Poor, Michael Cannon of The Cato Institute
and John C. Goodman M.D., author of Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis and Living with Obamacare: A Consumer's Guide and many more are linked there. HHCapitalism.com recommends you bookmark it.
Click to visit: RealClearPolicy.com.
and John C. Goodman M.D., author of Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis and Living with Obamacare: A Consumer's Guide and many more are linked there. HHCapitalism.com recommends you bookmark it.
Click to visit: RealClearPolicy.com.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Bonjour la France!
Of all the countries from which comes traffic to this site, France is #1 today, #3 for the week and #4 for the month.
Si vous êtes Français et ce site web vous interesse, je vous prie de m'écrire a HHCapitalism@gmail.com. Vous pouvez m'écrire en Français, puisque j'habitais Paris pendant quatre ans dans les années quatre-vignt.
Aves-vous lu L'Obsession Anti-Americaine, par Jean-Francois Revel?
Merci,
Howard Hyde
Si vous êtes Français et ce site web vous interesse, je vous prie de m'écrire a HHCapitalism@gmail.com. Vous pouvez m'écrire en Français, puisque j'habitais Paris pendant quatre ans dans les années quatre-vignt.
Aves-vous lu L'Obsession Anti-Americaine, par Jean-Francois Revel?
Merci,
Howard Hyde
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
On Libertarianism and Republicans
[From the President's Address to the members and guests of the Southern California Republican Women and Men, April 26, 2014, by
Howard Hyde:]
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:
Howard Hyde:]
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:
California's Golden Goose Getting Throttled
By Howard Hyde
[Previously published as the 'President's Message' in the May edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
We are honored to have as our featured speaker for May 24 Stephen Frank, political consultant and editor of California Political News and Views.
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.
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:
[Previously published as the 'President's Message' in the May edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
We are honored to have as our featured speaker for May 24 Stephen Frank, political consultant and editor of California Political News and Views.
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.
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:
The Conservative Solution to Poverty and Inequality
A talk by Gary Aminoff
[Previously published in the June edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
This year marks the 50th Anniversary of the “War on Poverty” as announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, along with his “Great Society” program. These two programs were experiments in using the massive power of the Federal Government to radically lift the poor out of poverty and to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.
Fifty years later, or $20 Trillion later, depending on how you count, is a good test of its effectiveness, and has given us the time to conclude that it has totally failed.
The result of the War on Poverty has been to lessen some of the effects of poverty but not to reduce poverty itself. What has happened is that government programs have made the poor more secure in their poverty. Because the government has put a safety net under their poverty through massive entitlement payments, it has eliminated the incentive for most of the poor to attempt to rise above the poverty level.
Because the “War on Poverty” and the “Great Society” were ideas of the left, and since they have demonstrably failed, it is time for the political right to take on for ourselves, based on our own principles of self-responsibility, free people and free markets, making it possible for more people to pull themselves out of poverty and into the middle class, and from the middle class to wealth.
We have to do it because a) the Left has pretty much given up doing anything about poverty at this point in time, other than fostering hate against those who have been successful, and b) we owe it to our fellow citizens to show that free market principles really work, and that capitalism is not a dirty word. We need to show that you are truly free to rise, of your own effort, to climb the ladder of financial success, and that it is really possible to do so.
The conservative plan for how to achieve that will be the subject of my talk on Saturday, June 28.
[Previously published in the June edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
This year marks the 50th Anniversary of the “War on Poverty” as announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, along with his “Great Society” program. These two programs were experiments in using the massive power of the Federal Government to radically lift the poor out of poverty and to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.
Fifty years later, or $20 Trillion later, depending on how you count, is a good test of its effectiveness, and has given us the time to conclude that it has totally failed.
The result of the War on Poverty has been to lessen some of the effects of poverty but not to reduce poverty itself. What has happened is that government programs have made the poor more secure in their poverty. Because the government has put a safety net under their poverty through massive entitlement payments, it has eliminated the incentive for most of the poor to attempt to rise above the poverty level.
Because the “War on Poverty” and the “Great Society” were ideas of the left, and since they have demonstrably failed, it is time for the political right to take on for ourselves, based on our own principles of self-responsibility, free people and free markets, making it possible for more people to pull themselves out of poverty and into the middle class, and from the middle class to wealth.
We have to do it because a) the Left has pretty much given up doing anything about poverty at this point in time, other than fostering hate against those who have been successful, and b) we owe it to our fellow citizens to show that free market principles really work, and that capitalism is not a dirty word. We need to show that you are truly free to rise, of your own effort, to climb the ladder of financial success, and that it is really possible to do so.
The conservative plan for how to achieve that will be the subject of my talk on Saturday, June 28.
Ayn Rand on Money
[From the President’s Address to the members and guests of the Southern California Republican Women and Men, May 24, 2014, by Howard Hyde:]
We’re going to take a digression for just a few minutes now. One of the things we do here every month is take a little time to step back a bit from the clanging issues and petty quarrels to contemplate and reinforce our philosophy, our theory and our principles. A reconsideration of economic theory was indispensible to my own personal conversion from Liberal-Socialist-Progressive-Democrat to Constitutional-Conservative-Libertarian-Republican, and a review of principles will strengthen all of us in our ability to persuade our fellow citizens of the validity of our policy and candidate recommendations. As the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin said, there is nothing more practical than a good theory.
Today’s speech writer is Ayn Rand, and her speaker is Francisco d’Anconia, a character in her novel Atlas Shrugged, which tells the tale of mid-20th century America in which the confiscation of wealth and liberty by the political power-broker class becomes so intolerable that the great industrial entrepreneurs themselves go on strike.
Ayn Rand challenges us to think more than superficially about the nature of that much maligned medium of exchange in a post-barter economy, MONEY. I will be reading an abridged version [950 of the original 2700 words], but you are encouraged to read the complete one (for that matter, read the whole novel).
“Francisco’s Money Speech”
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’ […]
“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind. […]
“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. […]
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. […]
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. […]
“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’ […]
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality. […]
“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand may be purchased at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876
We’re going to take a digression for just a few minutes now. One of the things we do here every month is take a little time to step back a bit from the clanging issues and petty quarrels to contemplate and reinforce our philosophy, our theory and our principles. A reconsideration of economic theory was indispensible to my own personal conversion from Liberal-Socialist-Progressive-Democrat to Constitutional-Conservative-Libertarian-Republican, and a review of principles will strengthen all of us in our ability to persuade our fellow citizens of the validity of our policy and candidate recommendations. As the German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin said, there is nothing more practical than a good theory.
Today’s speech writer is Ayn Rand, and her speaker is Francisco d’Anconia, a character in her novel Atlas Shrugged, which tells the tale of mid-20th century America in which the confiscation of wealth and liberty by the political power-broker class becomes so intolerable that the great industrial entrepreneurs themselves go on strike.
Ayn Rand challenges us to think more than superficially about the nature of that much maligned medium of exchange in a post-barter economy, MONEY. I will be reading an abridged version [950 of the original 2700 words], but you are encouraged to read the complete one (for that matter, read the whole novel).
“Francisco’s Money Speech”
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’ […]
“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality–the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind. […]
“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. […]
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun. […]
When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed. […]
“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’ […]
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose–because it contains all the others–the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity–to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality. […]
“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other–and your time is running out.”
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand may be purchased at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876
Political Discussion and Debate Forum Breaks Records
By Michael Lerew
[Previously published in the June edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
Greetings, politically active, involved and interested readers! Last month we had a lively discussion during our club's open issues forum. Having a good attendance of some forty people helps, I think! In considering how to present the forum report this time, I thought it might be useful to set down the questions that were discussed. This might be useful to those who perhaps have never attended one of our meetings, and wonder what we are all about!
During the forum portion of our club meeting, the moderator (yours truly, or some other brave soul, if I am not there--as will be the case in June) poses questions on issues of local, state or national interest, which have to do with politics in some way. If you would like to comment, raise your hand, and you will be called on, and have three minutes. No one else may interject or interrupt while you are speaking. If someone wishes to pose a question to you based on your comment, then your reply may be as much as two minutes. In the interest of decorum, there is no direct back-and-forth allowed between those who wish to speak--everybody has to wait for their turn and be recognized. After eight years of being moderator, I can attest to the wisdom of this policy. It has a certain calming influence if talk gets heated!
If you would prefer to listen and not speak, that is fine. That is the preference of many of the folks who attend our meetings.
Now, the topics from last time:
In a little over a week, the California primary election will take place. Are there any races which you find especially interesting? Are there any on which you would like to comment?
An issue much in the news is that of problems with the Veterans Administration hospitals. Any comments on this? (We heard from people who had good experiences, and not-so-good. I would say more people mentioned good experiences than otherwise).
Since our last meeting, Toyota announced they would leave the South Bay for Texas, costing California 3,000 jobs. Comments?
At a recent debate of candidates for supervisors, seeking to replace Zev Yaroslavsky, several of the Democrats running said that the most important issue facing the county is to improve the troubled child welfare department. Do you agree?
Another big issue facing the county is whether to build a new, modern jail, with much better facilities for handling the large number of mentally ill inmates. The cost estimates for this project are as high as two billion dollars. What do you think about this?
Those were our main topics of discussion in May. Sometimes we focus much more on state or national issues, but last time it happened that we had plenty to talk about on local issues! Also, if there is a particular topic you would like to hear discussed, you can let me know, and I will try to make sure it comes up. Some of our members are especially interested in: public education issues, including budgets; veterans issues; right to life issues; Second Amendment issues; increasing Republican turnout in elections; races for elective office in the City of Los Angeles; races in other parts of L.A. County; and we have had the privilege of having candidates for statewide office, also, attend and speak to us about their races.
I know that it is inspiring to me, to hear someone in that big room in the restaurant stand up and speak with passion about why they are seeking an elected office. It is a very tough and often thankless and expensive effort, and I admire all those who have the strength and courage to do it! The Founding Fathers of our country would be proud of all you candidates. Getting to meet and know such bright and interesting people is one of the benefits of coming to our meetings!
Michael Lerew is a Vice President and former President of SCRW&M.
Email to: shakspryn86@yahoo.com.
[Previously published in the June edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
Greetings, politically active, involved and interested readers! Last month we had a lively discussion during our club's open issues forum. Having a good attendance of some forty people helps, I think! In considering how to present the forum report this time, I thought it might be useful to set down the questions that were discussed. This might be useful to those who perhaps have never attended one of our meetings, and wonder what we are all about!
During the forum portion of our club meeting, the moderator (yours truly, or some other brave soul, if I am not there--as will be the case in June) poses questions on issues of local, state or national interest, which have to do with politics in some way. If you would like to comment, raise your hand, and you will be called on, and have three minutes. No one else may interject or interrupt while you are speaking. If someone wishes to pose a question to you based on your comment, then your reply may be as much as two minutes. In the interest of decorum, there is no direct back-and-forth allowed between those who wish to speak--everybody has to wait for their turn and be recognized. After eight years of being moderator, I can attest to the wisdom of this policy. It has a certain calming influence if talk gets heated!
If you would prefer to listen and not speak, that is fine. That is the preference of many of the folks who attend our meetings.
Now, the topics from last time:
In a little over a week, the California primary election will take place. Are there any races which you find especially interesting? Are there any on which you would like to comment?
An issue much in the news is that of problems with the Veterans Administration hospitals. Any comments on this? (We heard from people who had good experiences, and not-so-good. I would say more people mentioned good experiences than otherwise).
Since our last meeting, Toyota announced they would leave the South Bay for Texas, costing California 3,000 jobs. Comments?
At a recent debate of candidates for supervisors, seeking to replace Zev Yaroslavsky, several of the Democrats running said that the most important issue facing the county is to improve the troubled child welfare department. Do you agree?
Another big issue facing the county is whether to build a new, modern jail, with much better facilities for handling the large number of mentally ill inmates. The cost estimates for this project are as high as two billion dollars. What do you think about this?
Those were our main topics of discussion in May. Sometimes we focus much more on state or national issues, but last time it happened that we had plenty to talk about on local issues! Also, if there is a particular topic you would like to hear discussed, you can let me know, and I will try to make sure it comes up. Some of our members are especially interested in: public education issues, including budgets; veterans issues; right to life issues; Second Amendment issues; increasing Republican turnout in elections; races for elective office in the City of Los Angeles; races in other parts of L.A. County; and we have had the privilege of having candidates for statewide office, also, attend and speak to us about their races.
I know that it is inspiring to me, to hear someone in that big room in the restaurant stand up and speak with passion about why they are seeking an elected office. It is a very tough and often thankless and expensive effort, and I admire all those who have the strength and courage to do it! The Founding Fathers of our country would be proud of all you candidates. Getting to meet and know such bright and interesting people is one of the benefits of coming to our meetings!
Michael Lerew is a Vice President and former President of SCRW&M.
Email to: shakspryn86@yahoo.com.
Resources for California Voters
By Howard Hyde
[Previously published as the 'President's Message' in the June edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
Few things illustrate just how much some California voters are not paying attention than the fact that one candidate for Secretary of State, who had not only withdrawn from the race, but is under indictment by the FBI for bribery and trafficking shoulder-mounted rocket launchers in a high-profile criminal corruption case, nevertheless placed third among eight candidates with almost 290,000 votes, or 10% of the total: California State Senator and leading gun control activist Leland Yee.
All we can say is, those 290,000 voters aren’t members of SCRW&M and don’t read this newsletter, because if they were, they would make better choices.
We pride ourselves here at SCRW&M for being a training ground for leaders, a place for informed voters to become even better informed, from fundamental principles to the particulars of specific races and legislation. Our meetings provide the opportunity for grassroots Republicans to speak and be heard, to learn and to teach, and to connect with other activists, candidates and party officials. There are no low-information voters here.
We recognize that getting good information about what’s going on politically and economically in California can challenging. The typical sources of news are either hopelessly biased toward a liberal-progressive-socialist agenda or they lack important information, focused on local traffic accidents and bank robberies, events in Washington or international geo-politics, diplomacy and war. Good information about our state, the ninth largest economy among nation states in the world, is harder to find.
For this reason we will offer some valuable resources here.
Flashreport.org provides “California’s most significant political news”, compiled from dozens of sources including The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Sacramento Bee, The Santa Cruz Sentinel, the Orange Country Register and more. Columnists published on FlashReport.org include Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell and Steven Greenhut (columnist for the OC Register and author of Plunder: How Public Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation).
For example, regarding the 290,000 votes for the indicted alleged Mafioso, see Katy Grimes article: Californians Prove This Is The Crazy State: http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2014/06/04/californians-prove-this-is-the-crazy-state/
Another invaluable resource for California politics is California Political Review at www.capoliticalreview.com, at which our featured speaker at the May 24 meeting, Stephen Frank, is Senior Contributing Editor and our own club Treasurer William Saracino has been a contributing editor for 24 years.
The news isn’t all bad. For example, at CAPoliticalReview you can read Carson Bruno’s article: The Week’s Other Political Earthquake – In California, Naturally:
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/the-weeks-other-political-earthquake-in-california-naturally/
The California Permanent Employment Statute, which grants lifetime tenure to teachers after just 18 months of service and makes it prohibitively costly (on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars) to fire incompetent teachers, has been declared unconstitutional (violating the California Constitutional rights of students to a quality education) by Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Rolf Treu, in the case Vergara vs. California. It remains to be seen how this ruling will hold up on appeal. Meanwhile, the two surviving candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction have weighed in. Tom Torlakson, the Democrat backed by the CTA to the tune of $3 million, has expressed ‘support for the teachers’. Marshall Tuck has emphasized the rights of the students.
Finally, for the serious student of California history, politics and political economy, there are the books:
• Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State: How California is Destroying Itself and Why It Matters to America, by Laer Pearce.
• Taxifornia: Liberal’s Laboratory to Bankrupt America, by James V. Lacy.
• Eureka! How to Fix California, by Arthur B. Laffer, PhD
For information on election results in California, see: http://vote.sos.ca.gov
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:
[Previously published as the 'President's Message' in the June edition of the Newsletter of the Southern California Republican Women and Men.]
Few things illustrate just how much some California voters are not paying attention than the fact that one candidate for Secretary of State, who had not only withdrawn from the race, but is under indictment by the FBI for bribery and trafficking shoulder-mounted rocket launchers in a high-profile criminal corruption case, nevertheless placed third among eight candidates with almost 290,000 votes, or 10% of the total: California State Senator and leading gun control activist Leland Yee.
All we can say is, those 290,000 voters aren’t members of SCRW&M and don’t read this newsletter, because if they were, they would make better choices.
We pride ourselves here at SCRW&M for being a training ground for leaders, a place for informed voters to become even better informed, from fundamental principles to the particulars of specific races and legislation. Our meetings provide the opportunity for grassroots Republicans to speak and be heard, to learn and to teach, and to connect with other activists, candidates and party officials. There are no low-information voters here.
We recognize that getting good information about what’s going on politically and economically in California can challenging. The typical sources of news are either hopelessly biased toward a liberal-progressive-socialist agenda or they lack important information, focused on local traffic accidents and bank robberies, events in Washington or international geo-politics, diplomacy and war. Good information about our state, the ninth largest economy among nation states in the world, is harder to find.
For this reason we will offer some valuable resources here.
Flashreport.org provides “California’s most significant political news”, compiled from dozens of sources including The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Sacramento Bee, The Santa Cruz Sentinel, the Orange Country Register and more. Columnists published on FlashReport.org include Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell and Steven Greenhut (columnist for the OC Register and author of Plunder: How Public Employee Unions are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation).
For example, regarding the 290,000 votes for the indicted alleged Mafioso, see Katy Grimes article: Californians Prove This Is The Crazy State: http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2014/06/04/californians-prove-this-is-the-crazy-state/
Another invaluable resource for California politics is California Political Review at www.capoliticalreview.com, at which our featured speaker at the May 24 meeting, Stephen Frank, is Senior Contributing Editor and our own club Treasurer William Saracino has been a contributing editor for 24 years.
The news isn’t all bad. For example, at CAPoliticalReview you can read Carson Bruno’s article: The Week’s Other Political Earthquake – In California, Naturally:
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/the-weeks-other-political-earthquake-in-california-naturally/
The California Permanent Employment Statute, which grants lifetime tenure to teachers after just 18 months of service and makes it prohibitively costly (on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars) to fire incompetent teachers, has been declared unconstitutional (violating the California Constitutional rights of students to a quality education) by Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Rolf Treu, in the case Vergara vs. California. It remains to be seen how this ruling will hold up on appeal. Meanwhile, the two surviving candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction have weighed in. Tom Torlakson, the Democrat backed by the CTA to the tune of $3 million, has expressed ‘support for the teachers’. Marshall Tuck has emphasized the rights of the students.
Finally, for the serious student of California history, politics and political economy, there are the books:
• Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State: How California is Destroying Itself and Why It Matters to America, by Laer Pearce.
• Taxifornia: Liberal’s Laboratory to Bankrupt America, by James V. Lacy.
• Eureka! How to Fix California, by Arthur B. Laffer, PhD
For information on election results in California, see: http://vote.sos.ca.gov
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)