"Emancipation From What...Capitalism?"

Brian Wesbbury and Bob Stein:

" 'In the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live about 24 years. A third died in the first year of life. Hunger and epidemic disease ravaged the survivors. By 1820, life expectation had risen to 36 years in the west, with only marginal improvement elsewhere. After 1820, world development became much more dynamic. By 2003, income per head had risen nearly ten-fold, population six-fold. Per capita income rose by 1.2 per cent a year: 24 times as fast as in 1000-1820. Life expectation increased to 76 years in the west and 63 in the rest of the world.'

Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy.

To paraphrase - for 1800 years, progress was virtually non-existent; then it accelerated sharply. It takes a severe case of denial for someone to ignore these lessons of history. What they show is that when freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the true source of improvement in the human condition.

The US Constitution was crucial in the process of freedom. It established a new country with protected property rights. The Declaration of Independence declared the “unalienable Rights” of 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' It also declared that 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….'

Yes, the US has its history with slavery and women’s suffrage, but the Civil War, and 13th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution fixed those wrongs. It wasn’t easy, but the system worked. No system of social and economic organization has done more to lift living standards than the US system of 'free market capitalism.' No system of governance has improved the lives of so many people.

So, why is this system under attack? Have we uncovered problems with free market capitalism that are the equivalent of slavery and women’s suffrage?

President Obama thinks so. In a speech last week, he called belief in capitalism 'blind faith.'He said this philosophy, of letting people 'fend for themselves' has 'failed.' He added that “people are frustrated, they’re anxious, they’re scared about the future. [But] now is not the time to quit....We’ve been through worse.... It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote.'

This is the Progressive’s mantra – 'Capitalism is unjust, unfair...A new system must be put in its place and this takes time.' There is only one problem with this logic. It’s not really progress and it has never, ever worked. Today’s progressives are the ones that ask for blind faith. They want people to believe that they have finally figured out how to do it right

But this is just wishful thinking. Every economic system, no matter how it is described, is a system that distributes resources among competing interests. In a Progressive system, government officials control this process. In a free market system, resources flow to those who use them best to improve the lives of others. The market votes every day on these products and services and the successful ones are given more resources. To prove how fluid this system is, more businesses fail each year than succeed.

This is not true of government. Once started, government programs rarely fail. The system perpetuates them with more money and more resources. The waste increases over time until it becomes so overwhelming that the entire system fails. The Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Greece, California and Illinois are all the evidence needed.

The real problem with the economy these days it that we have moved too far away from free market capitalism. As government spending has increased, so has unemployment. This is not a mystery; the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector and the less dynamic the economy. If there is any emancipation needed these days it’s from the government, not from capitalism."

"Now I'm free, I'm free falling "

More:

"Two observations: first, while poll results bounce around from day to day, Obama's trend is obvious. He does not appear to have reached bottom yet. Second, for some time now a plurality of respondents--the largest group by a considerable margin--has strongly disapproved of his performance. In recent weeks, that plurality has been around 40 percent. It continues to grow.

It seems doubtful that many of those who now strongly disapprove of Obama's performance will ever become 'approvers,' even if Obama changes course a bit. So the radical measures that Obama tried to ram through Congress in the early weeks of his administration have likely mobilized a solid core of opposition against which the President will have to contend for the rest of his term."

'The Second Coming of Keynes'

"Paul Krugman wants to be our savior."

More:

"Like a savior, he would perform a miracle for us: that of turning consumption into wealth. But who would accept a messiah with such a John the Baptist as John Maynard Keynes, who proclaimed that credit expansion could perform the 'miracle … of turning a stone into bread'?

In any case, Krugman is a curious kind of savior: one more interested in exercising his brilliance than in actually helping people. In the Newsweek profile, he said of his policy advocacy,

"I am not overflowing with human compassion. It's more of an intellectual thing."

Indeed, there is something almost calculated in the unblinking wrongheadedness of both Keynes and Krugman. You're not likely to get much notoriety as a public intellectual advocating common sense."

Read the whole thing.

It's a brilliant and thoroughly devastating rebuke to the Klown Prince of "progressive" agenda economics.

#

So you think there's some sort of 'moral imperative' regarding CO2?

You may be right, but not for the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" agenda issue lies the True Believers want to embed as "settled science".



(hat tip: CO2 Science)

#

I wonder when the NEXT 'official revision' on the 'Stimulus' will be forthcoming?

Perhaps just as we get ready for "Stimulus" II?

Also, can we make sure Slow Joe STAYS asleep?

Telling the truth about Obamacare

Don't expect Obama Magnus and the Blue Bozo Brigades to stop lying about Obamacare. They figure they'll get it rushed through into law before you figure out just how bad it actually is.

Noteworthy:

"Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.

Yet even as many Americans start to have second thoughts about our government's possible takeover of the health care system, Congress is rushing to make it happen."

Read the rest for the truthful counter to the "Progressive" propaganda.

#

Dunce Cap 'n Trade

Newt Gingrich:

"The sponsors of Waxman-Markey are telling Americans that not only will the legislation save us from calamitous climate change, it will also produce new jobs and new prosperity by transitioning America to new forms of 'green' energy. In other words, there's no trade-off necessary to save the planet; no price to be paid. It's a win-win-win.

Right. And 2+2=5. The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price."

More:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.

SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

From Patriot Post US.

Will Obamacare spark a new exodus of young high income earner emigration?

It's a possibility, according to the information in this article.

Excerpt:

"For any kind of 'all-in' group health insurance scheme to work financially, there has to be subsidization of the poor from the wealthy. The system needs the high earners to contribute more than they consume, especially if they are relatively healthy and thus not consuming expensive services.

However, these high income professionals who are NOT utilizing health benefits to an excessive degree would be ABSOLUTELY the ones most likely to look for alternatives to avoid being a captive individual subsidizing the system. This Panama article, while it does not focus on health care exclusively, is pointing out exactly those most likely to leave.

As for the tax impact, at a high level if you are self-employed you can deduct your health insurance premiums against your gross income (which reduces it effectively by your overall tax rate, say 30%) but if you are not self employed then you can only deduct it to the extent that it exceeds 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.

Thus estimates that show the US health care costs (and revenues) and neglect to take into account that the most mobile and wealthy citizens have CHOICES of where to live will not predict accurately what will in fact happen.

While US citizens may not typically migrate overseas, this is an established solution to high taxes in other countries. The UK, for instance, has always had a large population outflow of retirees, especially to Spain. Much of this is due to the fact that UK taxes are punishing (and the weather isn’t so great) and UK citizens are adventurous enough to leave the country of their birth in order to improve their standard of living.

Countries outside the US also will respond to these opportunities. Panama and Costa Rica are attempting to be more friendly to US retirees because they know that they represent an opportunity for their economy. If health care can be brought up somewhere close to US standards (basically by walling off poorer locals or migrants) for at least preventative and maintenance care (if not for high tech procedures) then they will be able to draw in those individuals who can bring their wealth overseas and also bask in the beautiful weather and scenery.

I remember when I was traveling in Australia once and sitting on a plane next to an elderly gentleman and he looked over at me and asked me if I was emigrating. I honestly was taken aback - I had never thought about moving overseas. Perhaps the US citizenry will start taking a wider view of living outside of the USA if taxes and regulations become too punishing."

Wouldn't it be ironic if this sort of thing happens in high numbers, thereby throwing a kink in Obama's stated "spread the wealth" agenda?

The middle class would not be amused though. It's obviously clear that in the above instance, the huge tax burden would fall upon them, thereby reducing the middle class and the nation to the economic status of banana republic, assuming Obama can't make the Imperium idea hold up.

#

Transparency in the Obamanation?

Yeah, right.

Ask Alan Carlin about what happens to those in government who have the audacity to expose the official nonsense on a cherished agenda item like "global warming" climate change.

Noteworthy:

"The Bush administration's great sin, for the record, was daring to issue reports that laid out the administration's official position on global warming. That the reports did not contain the most doomsday predictions led to howls that the Bush politicals were suppressing and ignoring career scientists.

The Carlin dustup falls into a murkier category. Unlike annual reports, the Obama EPA's endangerment finding is a policy act. As such, EPA is required to make public those agency documents that pertain to the decision, to allow for public comment. Court rulings say rulemaking records must include both 'the evidence relied upon and the evidence discarded.' In refusing to allow Mr. Carlin's study to be circulated, the agency essentially hid it from the docket.

(Imagine that!)

Unable to defend the EPA's actions, the climate-change crew -- , led by anonymous EPA officials -- is doing what it does best: trashing Mr. Carlin as a 'denier.' He is, we are told, 'only' an economist (he in fact holds a degree in physics from CalTech). It wasn't his 'job' to look at this issue (he in fact works in an office tasked with 'informing important policy decisions with sound economics and other sciences.') His study was full of sham science. (The majority of it in fact references peer-reviewed studies.) Where's Mr. Hansen and his defense of scientific freedom when you really need him?

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition."

#

Why is the Obamanation in such a hurry to ram Cap 'n Trade down our throats?

It's simple.

The unproven science, the hysterical propaganda, and the academic and intellectual fraud committed in the name of "anthropogenic global warming climate change" that provides the basis for this new massive tax that hits the middle class the hardest Cap 'n Trade legislation is being exposed piece by piece on a regular basis.

The number of scientists calling the Alarmists on their nonsense continues to increase , and the constant emergence of real world scientific facts continue to demolish the "evil man-made CO2" dogma.

Key point:

"Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications.

Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone."

#

'Anthropogenic global warming' is a FALSIFIED theory

Here's why:

"In the case of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it suffers total, unrecoverable, undeniable and irrefutable falsification if the amount of heat energy stored in all of the Earth's planetary heat sinks does not rise and fall along with the total radiative forcing due to carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Guess what? It hasn't been doing any such thing. Worse, total heat (energy, not temperature) has been falling, not rising, even though carbon dioxide levels (and the radiative forcing that results) has been rising during the same period."

It won't make any difference, though.

The enablers of bad science and the purveyors of babble, dribble, drool and spew of the "global warming"worldview/ religion will find some way to obfuscate, deflect, deny, and lie about this.

Just like always.

#

Getting the facts straight about the bogus NOAA temperature data

Joseph D'Aleo has the honors of putting the most recent "global warming" alarmist temperature canard to rest.

And yet we are faced with an imminent act of "cap 'n trade" thievery by the Obamanation.

Read the whole thing for the facts that once again establish the utter chicanery that is the "anthropogenic global warming" scam.

#

The hidden (and usually unspoken about) costs of Obama policies

Susan Dudley and Jeff Rosen, on the essential truth:

"Unlike spending and associated taxes, which are subject to approval by both the legislative and executive branches and are visible to the public, regulatory decisions don't face the same checks and balances and their effects are far less transparent. They represent a hidden tax, not easy to measure and track, but borne by American taxpayers, consumers, and workers nevertheless.

And often, regulations benefit vocal, well-organized interest groups at the expense of the broader public....

....Some of these new regulations may have merit, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that any are urgent. The new administration's number one priority should be getting our economy back on track, and the costs and consequences of competing objectives should be as visible to the American people as the stimulus spending programs that have received so much attention.

Under the circumstances, actions that impose sizable hidden taxes on American citizens should be put on hold, or at least exposed to much more careful evaluation to be sure their merits outweigh their costs and burdens on our struggling economy."

As well we know, the campaign rhetoric of "no tax increase on the middle class" was a carefully crafted lie.

Where should we start the list of policy initiatives whose costs and burdens clearly outweigh their merits?

-- Obamacare?
-- Cap 'n Trade?
-- Porkulus?

It's difficult to choose which of theses incredibly short-sighted and worldview agenda-fulfilling disasters is worse.

Cap 'n Trade implementation alone is likely to raise a middle class family of four's effective tax rate by more than 50%:

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the level of CO2 to 15 percent less than the total level of U.S. emissions in 2005 would require permit prices that would increase the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. To put that $1,600 carbon tax in perspective, a typical family of four with earnings of $50,000 now pays an income tax of about $3,000.

The tax imposed by the cap and trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent. (Some advocates of a cap and trade program argue that the cost to households could be much less than $1,600 if the government uses the tax revenue to finance transfers to low income households and tax cuts to others, but since there is no way to know how the future revenue would actually be used, the only number we have to consider is the $1,600 direct increase in the burden on households.)"

Feldstein's $1600 figure is likely WAY too optimistic on the low side, perhaps on a factor of two-three times less than the eventual reality.

#

An open letter to Barack Obama

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

---

Supposedly attributed to Lou Pritchett, a former Vice President of Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble, and an innovator in marketing.

I was unable to confirm the authorship, but it doesn't matter. MILLIONS of people could have written this letter.

#

Analyzing the Obama Recession

"Using Obama's own numbers. we are now worse off than we would have been had Obama's stimulus had not gone into effect."

More:
"During the stimulus debate, Obama took the dishonest position that Congressional Republicans wanted to do nothing to help the economy recover. It turns out doing nothing might have been the smarter move. "

Not electing this disaster in the first place would have been a smarter move, too.

But we already knew that, and we've been saying that for more than a year now, haven't we?

#

Wheel of Fortune: 'Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming' version

They think they're going to solve the puzzle, but the rest of us know that the next spin will bankrupt ALL of us.

#

Are the Chrysler dealership closings tainted by political payback?

Gateway Pundit wants to know. You should, too.

Noteworthy:

Again here is what we know so far--

** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.

** Later it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.

** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.

** Steven Rattner leads The Auto Task Force and is married to the former National Finance Chair of Democratic Party, Maureen White.

** The closings in several instances appear to benefit Dem donating dealers where local GOP-linked dealerships were closed.

** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.

** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.

** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.

** After closing the 789 dealerships Chrysler announced that they are already looking to open new franchises.

** Chrysler dealership owners donated to Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 76% to 24%.

Very interesting.

If the accusations are true, would anyone really be surprised, given the Obamanation's record so far?

#

Obama admits the obvious

"We're out of money."

Rick Moran:

"This is a man who hasn't a clue. Yes, we are in a recession and a financial crisis. So your scare tactics that ratcheted up fear in order to get your stim bill, omnibus spending, and FY 2009 budget passed - a total of more than $5 trillion with interest added - are backfiring and you think you can work your way out of it by spending a trillion more on a health insurance boondoggle?

What planet is this guy from? "

Not Krypton, obviously.

And, of course, our current and pending economic disasters can be blamed on anyone or anything but him.

Noteworthy:

" 'Don't blame me,' Obama says. It's those 7 Straw Men who are responsible. "

Such is life under the Obamanation.

#

The Cap 'n Trade Bill: Waxman doesn't have a CLUE of what it contains

Yet he barfs up the nonsense about the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" without missing a hurl.



Is there NOTHING that will save us from the sheer lunacy and outright lies of the True Believers?

I guess that's just one more item we'll need to add to the list of things they expect us to "smile and grin at the changes all around....."

#

Shall we visit to remember, and to pay our respects?

The safeguard for politically induced suicide is supposed to be the Constitution. Unfortunately, that document is widely ignored by those in power who have a political, social, and economic agenda to forcibly install.

#