Quote of the Day
Each friend represents a world in us,a world possibly not born until they arrive.
Anais Nin
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Christian Libertarians |
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| via LFC |
Export-Import Bank needs to END. The upcoming vote is a litmus test on ending an egregious form of corporate welfare. Stop crony capitalism!
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 10, 2014
No word on whether Obama can bowl over 37 on the 1-lane WH alley under North Portico, but taxpayers pay for staffer 2-lane upgrade in EEOB.
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 10, 2014
Chart of the Day |
| Courtesy of Cato Institute |
Chris Edwards of Cato Institute extracts this telling story of federal government incompetence from Burton and Anita Folsom over the turn of the nineteenth century (and yet the feds keep banging their heads against the wall):
- Unhappy that British fur traders were out-competing American traders, Congress appropriated $50,000 in 1795 to create frontier posts stocked with American goods to trade with the Indians for furs.
- These government-run fur “factories” were supposed to earn a return, but they “were so poorly run that many Indians held them in contempt and refused to trade there.” Congress had to heavily subsidize the system to keep it operating.
- Rather than respond to the market demands of the Indians, as private traders did, the official running the government system, Thomas McKenney, tried to push products on the Indians that he thought they ought to have.
- The government set up its trading posts at substantial distances from Indians. By contrast, private fur trader John Jacob Astor had his agents build close relationships with Indians, and he made trading easy for the tribes.
- Astor instituted pay for performance, while the government paid its fur bureaucrats fixed salaries.
- Astor watched international fur markets closely and adjusted his operations and marketing accordingly. The government ignored markets, and simply dumped furs in Washington for auction.
- Thomas McKenney was embarrassed by the government’s falling market share and the huge success of Astor. So, in 1818, McKenney began lobbying Congress to ban private fur traders. When that attempt at monopolization failed, McKenney lobbied to impose large fees on private traders and to boost taxpayer subsidies for the government system.
- Despite a new fee on private traders in 1820, the government system was falling apart because of plunging sales. An official report exposed the huge inefficiencies of the government system, and Congress finally voted to end it in 1822.
Chicagoan Entrepreneur Finds A New Business Home in Texas
Another Example of Conservative Charity: Kudos to Glenn Beck
I have had my differences with Beck, but this is pure class:
Glenn Beck on Tuesday announced that he will be bringing tractor-trailers full of food, water, teddy bears and soccer balls to McAllen, Texas on July 19 as a way to help care for some of the roughly 60,000 underage refugees who have crossed into America illegally in 2014.Best Buddies
Beck said he will be joined by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and a number of pastors and rabbis.
“Through no fault of their own, they are caught in political crossfire,” Beck said of the children. “And while we continue to put pressure on Washington and change its course of lawlessness, we must also help. It is not either, or. It is both. We have to be active in the political game, and we must open our hearts.”
High Tech Monitoring vs. Privacy
"Progressive" Julie Debates Libertarian Julie on Hobby Lobby
The "progressives" have been in full revolt over Hobby Lobby, with the desperate Democrats trying to do everything to politicize the decision, including repealing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which SCOTUS used to frame the decision that said a closely-held corporation does not have to pay for employee use of abortifacient drugs. Let's be clear: Hobby Lobby has no control over what its employees do with their take-home pay, including paying for abortifacient drugs on their own. The lawless Obama Administration was willing to make an accommodation for religious groups or not-for-profit corporations--but if you operate a for-enterprise business, you had to check your religious liberty at the door. That's manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. There is no chance any of these attempts will ever become law, but that's not the point: they want a vote on the record to use to motivate single women (which turned out for Obama by I believe a 20-point margin) to turn out for the fall elections where the Dems are in deep trouble. Senate Majority Leader Reid was quite explicit in trying to play the gender card when he framed the decision as a 5-man majority.
Facebook Corner
 |
| Via Liberty.me: Which stage are you? |
(a follow-up exchange from Christian Libertarians.)
The government does not want to solve the problems. They are paid to deal with problems so if the problems go away, so do their jobs. Same as the police are not interested in stopping crime, at all.
No, I think the bureaucracy indeed is vested in its survival, but from the political perspective, the fascists/socialists are going to argue that government has the economies of scale, without the "evil" profit motive. They are going to fearmonger any move to privatize: we are going to balance the budget on the backs of low-earners, etc. Also, from a political career perspective, it's easier to argue I've passed laws that addressed some common good, than I merged largely duplicative agencies, etc. Maybe accountants appreciate shoring up unfunded liabilities, but it's easier to point out a new traffic light at a dangerous intersection. We have a hard time explaining to people if the government stops doing X, the invisible hand will do it better, faster, and cheaper: what Bastiat calls the 'things unseen'.
(separate comment)
With respect to issues like the privatization of public welfare, I always like to ask, how did people deal with problems before, say, the New Deal and Great Society? For example, parents might move into a child's home, doctors offered limited-income elderly patients donated or deeply discounted care; we had mutual aid societies, fraternal organizations, etc. (cf. Beito).
Whether or not it is intended, government agencies hamper private-sector responses; for example, one private Christian charity was helping distribute surplus government cheese when some bureaucrat noticed and objected to a cross on the wall of the office. Then health departments raise fearmongering issues over donated food. I don't necessarily believe the fascists are ill-intended; I think they sincerely believe without government there, people fall through the cracks. They don't believe in spontaneous order or the invisible hand. They don't understand the morally hazardous aspects of their policies. It's this "we can't afford to do nothing" mentality: it's like deposit insurance. I would shop for the safest bank in town if my money was at stake, but if all the banks have guarantees on deposits, I may choose the most convenient bank, regardless of its loan portfolio. The private sector would likely do more if the government wasn't in the way.
(Drudge Report). SHOULD REPUBLICANS IMPEACH OBAMA?
No. I think Obama is trying to provoke the GOP into an overreaction. The GOP's impeachment of Clinton, whom had unambiguously obstructed justice in the Arkansas court, was well-founded, but there were enough Democrat votes to block conviction, and if anything, there was blowback against the GOP for bringing the country through the trauma of impeachment and coming up empty, the appearance of an oversized partisan vendetta. If anything, you now had a President whom was "exonerated" by acquittal and had little incentive to work with the opposition for the duration of his Presidency.
The Senate Democrats will never vote to remove the first black President from office short of a smoking gun. In the meanwhile, Obama's ratings are in the toilet, and it looks as though Democrats are increasingly running away from him, and the Democrats are in clear danger of losing the Senate this fall. If Obama loses control of the Congress, it could set the stage for 2016 being a referendum on an increasingly unpopular Obama Presidency.
(Christian Libertarians). How many people here believe the official story concerning 9-11?
I am not a truther and have never been one. Ockham's razor, plus I believe in the utter incompetence of government. People may not remember, but Bush had criticized Clinton's nation-building. If I had a nickel for everytime I did something other people said was "impossible".
(separate comment, after a discussant wrote "I'm just glad most people here are smart enough to know the original 9/11 story was just more media brainwashing.")
Crackpot conspiracy theories are NOT a sign of intelligence.
...
Look, the wreckage was causing a health hazard, and I suspect most construction engineers did not expect the buildings to be subject to suicide assaults by airliners.
(Reason). Leave it to Sarah Palin to make Speaker Boehner look like the voice of rationality.
Stock market is booming
Jobs are booming
Green energy is booming
Climate Change action delivered
Changes promised delivered
Americans don't know a good thing when they see one.
GDP was negative first quarter
Median household income is down
The labor force participation rate is at decades low
Weakest job recovery in decades
Near record high unemployment among minority groups
17% of mortgages seriously underwater
The stock market has barely budged over the last 14 years, adjusting for inflation
Domestic oil production is up, almost all because of drilling on private or state-owned land, i.e., despite Obama
Crony Big Green is good at collecting federal subsidies, bad at making profits or staying in business...
College tuitions are skyrocketing courtesy a nationalized unsustainable college loan bubble
Health insurance costs are way up after ObamaCare "reform"
The only things growing under the Obama Presidency are Foodstamp Nation, unfunded entitlements, a world-record national debt, and the Politics of Envy.
Additional Marriage Proposals
I didn't get the point of taking off her footwear, but it works for them. Oh my gosh: she's so adorable.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via US News |
Anne Murray, "A Love Song"
